[2022] 16 S.C.R. 1

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH
v.
NAMITA SEKHON & ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 4648 of 2022)
JULY 06, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Injuries causing 100% disability
– Determination of just and reasonable compensation – Pecuniary
damages and non-pecuniary damages – Appellant-claimant suffered
100% permanent disability in a road accident when he was five
and half years of age – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted
compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-, High Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs.23,20,000/- – On appeal, held: Taking guidance
from the judgment of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others reported as
[2020] 3 SCR 622 for determination of the compensation in the present
case, the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable – On facts, the amount
determined for payment of the compensation in pecuniary heads
( i.e. the loss of future earning, medical expenses including future
medical expenses, attendant charges and transportation including
future transportation) comes to Rs.46,62,000/- and in non-pecuniary
heads (mental and physical pain, sufferings present and in future,
loss of amenities of life including loss of marital bliss, loss of
expectancy in life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration, mental agony in life etc.) comes to
Rs.5,00,000/- – Total compensation comes to Rs.51,62,000/- –
Enhanced amount of Rs.28,42,000/- to carry interest @ 6.5% p.a.
from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Determination of just compensation
– Multiplier method – Held: Multiplier method has been recognized
as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided
looking to the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other
realistic needs – Thus, for determination of just compensation to
ensure justice with the family of deceased or the injured as the case
may be the compensation can be determined applying said method
– Not only for determination of future loss of earning but for
attendant charges also the multiplier method should be followed –
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 1
1

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal while granting the
compensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years
and attendant charges only for 20 years was not justified – Said
amount should be determined applying the multiplier method.
Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – Determination of –
Basis for, reason for awarding such compensation, applying the
uniform methodology comparable to the injuries – English
Judgments vis-à-vis Indian Law – Discussed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Non-pecuniary damages – “pain,
shock and suffering” – Multiple factors to be considered from the
date of accident – Discussed.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The claimant has suffered 100% permanent
disability in a road accident and the liability is joint and several.
By making the payment of compensation for damages would not
revive the claimant into his original position. The compensation
towards wrongful act in terms of money though cannot be decided
by the Court but it may be determined as per the recognized
principles. [Para 9, 10][9-F; 10-B-C]
1.2 The High Court in the impugned order observed that
the claimant has now started practice as an advocate, therefore,
future loss of earning has been calculated only for 10 years,
applying the multiplier of 16, without looking to the facts that
claimant cannot perform the work of advocacy similar to the other
advocates by attending the cases in different Courts. The
attendant charges have been allowed only for 20 years with one
attendant. In fact, not only for determination of future loss of
earning but for attendant charges also the multiplier method
should be followed. The multiplier method has been recognized
as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided
looking to the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other
real

…