NIZAM'S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. PRASANATH S. DHANANKA & ORS.

NIZAM'S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. 363 -, PRASANATH S. DHANANKA [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

35Copy pinpoint35. The question of compensation which has been hotly A debated and discussed during the course of arguments, now needs to be dealt with. Before the Commission, the complainant assessed his claim at a little over Rs.4.61 cores. As already observed above, the Commission has thought it fit to award compensation under the following heads: B

(a) Rs.8 lakh (expected to yield a monthly interest of about Rs.8,000/-] towards prospective charges for physiotherapy, nursing and associated expenses;

(b) Rs.4 lakh ( likewise expected to yield a monthly C interest of about Rs.4,000/-) for supplementing the complainant's future earnings, and

(c) Rs.2 lakh as compensation for mental agony, physical suffering and pain and also for 0 physiotherapy, nursing and associated expenses already incurred by him.

36Copy pinpoint36. In addition, a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh has been given as compensation to the complainant's parents for their agony, stress and depression and the future care they may have to bestow on their son. A total sum of Rs.15.5 lakh has, accordingly been determined payable by NIMS, the appellant before us.

37Copy pinpoint37. The complainant, who has argued his own case, has submitted written submissions now claiming about 7.50 Crores as compensation under various heads. He has, in addition sought a direction that a further sum of Rs. 2 crores be set aside to be used by him should some developments beneficial to him in the medical field take place. Some of the claims are untenable and we have no hesitation in rejecting them. We, however, find that the claim with respect to some of the other items need to be allowed or enhanced in view of the peculiar facts of the case. Concededly, the complainant is a highly qualified individual and is gainfully employed as an IT Engineer H

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A and as per his statement earning a sum of Rs.28 Lakh per annum though he is, as of today, about 40 years of age. The very nature of his work requires him to travel to different locations but as he is confined to a wheel chair he is unable to do so on his own. His need for a driver cum attendant is, B therefore, made out. The complainant has worked out the compensation under this head presuming his working life to be )t upto the age of 65 years. We feel that a period of 30 years from the date of the Award of the Commission i.e. 16th February, 1999, rounded off to 1st March, 1999, would be a reasonable c length of time. A sum of Rs.2,000/- per month for a period of 30 years (rounded off from 1st of March 1999) needs to be capitalized. We, accordingly, award a sum of Rs.7.2 Lakh under this head. The complainant has also sought a sum of Rs.49,05,800/- towards nursing care etc. as he is unable to perform even his daily ablutions without assistance. He has 0 computed this figure on the basis of the salary of a Nurse at Rs. 4375/-per month for 600 months. We are of the opinion that the amount as claimed is excessive. We, thus grant Rs.4,000/ - per month to the appellant for a period of 30 years making a E total sum of Rs.14,40,000/-. The complainant has further sought a sum of Rs.46 Lakhs towards physiotherapy etc. at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. We reduce the claim from Rs.4,000/ - to Rs.3,000/- per month and award this amount for a period of 30 years making a total sum of Rs.10,80,000/-At this stage, it may be pointed out that some of the medical expenses that had been incurred by the complainant have already been defrayed by the employer of the complainant's father and we are, therefore, disinclined to grant any compensation for the medical expenses already incurred. However, keeping in view the need for continuous medical aid which would involve expensive medicines and other material, and the loss towards future earnings etc., we direct a lump sum payment of Rs.25/- lakhs under each of these two heads making a total of Rs.50 lakhs. In addition, we direct a payment of Rs.10 lakh towards the pain and suffering that the appellant has undergone. The H total amount thus computed would work out to Rs.1,00,05,000

'NIZAM'S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. 365 PRASANATH S. DHANANKA [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

(Rs.1 crore 5 thousand) which is rounded off to Rs. One Crore A plus interest at 6% from 1st March, 1999 to the date of payment, giving due credit for any compensation which might have already been paid.

38Copy pinpoint38. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs.2 crore 8 to be put in deposit to be utilized by him in case some developments in the medical field make it possible for him to undergo further treatment so as to improve his quality of life. This claim is unjustified and hypothetical and is declined.

39Copy pinpoint39. We must emphasize that the Court has to strike a C balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does . not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the Court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The "adequate compensation" that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of the thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. It must also be borne in mind that life has its pitfalls and is not smooth sailing all along the way (as a claimant would have us believe) as the hiccups that invariably come about cannot be visualized. Life it is said is akin to a ride on a roller coaster where a meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance between the two (as in this very case) is a F minute or a yard. At the same time we ottert'find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress, vis- a-vis a family in a case ofdeath. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an G injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more H

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy ' and destroys their equanimity. We can also visualize the anxiety of the complainant and his parents for the future after the latter, as must all of us, inevitably fade away. We, have, therefore computed the compensation keeping in mind that his brilliant B career has been cut short and there is, as of now, no possibility of improvement in his condition, the compensation will ensure a steady and reasonable income to him for a time when he is x unable to earn for himself.

40Copy pinpoint40. Mr. Tandale, the learned counsel for the respondent c has, further, submitted that the proper method for determining compensation would be the multiplier method. We find absolutely no merit in this plea. The kina of damage that the complainant has suffered, the expenditure that he has incurred and is likely to incur in the future and the possibility that his rise in his chosen field would now be restricted, are matters which cannot be taken care of under the multiplier method. •

41Copy pinpoint41. Civil appeal No.3126 of 2000 is allowed in the above term with costs of Rs.50,000/-. It is also clarified that the complainant parents would be entitled to the sum awarded to them by the Commission. CA No.4119 of 1999 is dismissed.

42Copy pinpoint42. Before we end, a word of appreciation for the complainant who, assisted by his father, had argued his matter. We must record that though a sense of deep injury was discernible throughout his protracted submissions made while confined to a wheel-chair, he remained unruffled and with behaved quiet dignity, pleaded his case bereft of any rancour or invective for those who, in his perception, had harmed him.

43Copy pinpoint43. As the complainant is severely handicapped and has appeared in person, we direct that a copy of this judgment be _ sent to his address, free of cost, under registered cover.

K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.