Judgment :- K.Govindarajan, J. The above appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company questioning the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.3952/1996. The claimant also filed Cross Objection, not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. 2. In the accident that took place on 14.5.1995, on the Railway Over-bridge of 100 ft. Road, North Madras Thermal Power Project leading to Egmore, Madras, the claimant sustained injuries. According to the claimant, while he was travelling in the autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.TN 04 B 4657 along with his relation Mr.Ramasubramaniam (D.S.P.) and Sundaravadivelu, the lorry bearing Regn.No.MDM 4669 dashed against the said autorickshaw and caused injuries to the claimant. 3. The Insurance Company filed a counter statement stating that the place, date, time of accident are not admitted. It is also alleged that it is not true that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle MDM 4669. They also questioned the correctness of the quantum claimed by the claimant 4. The claimant gave evidence as P.W.1 and his mother as P.W.3. The Doctors are examined as P.Ws.2 and 4. 5. The claimant has amended the claim petition removing the restriction with respect to the claim amount. The Insurance Company has filed additional counter with respect to the same. The Insurance Company appointed investigators to find out the correct facts regarding the accident and whether the vehicle in question involved in the accident. On the basis of that report, another additional counter was filed denying that the lorry - MDM 4669 had involved in the accident that took place on 14.5.1995, and, according to the Insurance Company, the said lorry had been falsely implicated in the accident as if it colluded with the autorickshaw in which the claimant was travelling on 14.5.1995. It is stated that the owner of the autorickshaw Mr.K.P.Arumugam is a family friend of the injured and accordingly he had agreed for implication of the lorry - MDM - 4669 conveniently to foist the claim on the 2nd respondent-insurance company. 6. The Tribunal, on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence found that the said lorry MDM 4669 involved in the accident and the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. 6. The Tribunal, on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence found that the said lorry MDM 4669 involved in the accident and the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant is the only son to his widowed mother and he was looking after the estate, as she is aged about 60 years, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.44,00,000/-, which includes medical expenses, etc. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the above appeal. As stated already, the claimant has also preferred Cross Objection, not satisfied with the quantum fixed by the Tribunal. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of the Second Additional Counter submitted that the claimant has not established that the lorry in question had involved in the said accident. He also referred to the investigation report and the certified copies of the proceedings before the Criminal Court to establish that the vehicle MDM 4669 did not involve in the accident. According to him, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the case of the Insurance Company with respect to the identification of the vehicle which involved in the accident. With respect to the quantum, learned Additional Advocate General, questioned the correctness of the amount fixed only towards agricultural income and the medical expenses. With respect to the other amounts given by the Tribunal on other headings, no dispute is raised. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, loss of income from the lands due to inability of the claimant having personal superviision, was not properly calculated. The method adopted by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of income cannot be sustained. According to him, the loss can be arrived at by finding out the income from the lands, if he is personally cultivating and the income, if the lands are cultivated through managers. The difference between both the income can be taken as the loss. With respect to medical expenses, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the calculation made by the Tribunal is contrary to the amounts mentioned in the bills produced and the Insurance Company is ready to accept the actual amount which is mentioned in all the bills filed as Exhibits in the Court 8. With respect to medical expenses, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the calculation made by the Tribunal is contrary to the amounts mentioned in the bills produced and the Insurance Company is ready to accept the actual amount which is mentioned in all the bills filed as Exhibits in the Court 8. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the claimant is a bright student and was studying B.B.A. , through open university and the landed property stood in the name of P.W.3, the mother was looked after only by the claimant and in view of the family arrangements, the sisters of the claimant are not entitled to any right in the landed property. With respect to pain and suffering, learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/-, though the claimant has asked for Rs.10,00,000/-. Even with respect to permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,00,000/-, though the claimant has sought for Rs.10,00,000/-. According to her, on the basis of additional documents filed, the Tribunal should have awarded future medical expenses of Rs.25,00,000/-. She also submitted that the amount awarded towards loss of income and medical expenses are correct and need not be interfered with. With respect to identification of the vehicle, learned counsel submitted that the claimant had established that the vehicle in question, MDM 4669 had involved in the accident and so the Tribunal is correct in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company. 9. From the above pleadings and arguments, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:- (1) Whether the case of the Insurance Company that the lorry MDM 4669 had not involved in the accident is sustainable? (2) Whether the amount fixed by the Tribunal towards loss of income from the agricultural lands is sustainable in law and on facts? (3) Whether the medical expenses fixed by the Tribunal requires interference? (4) Whether the amount fixed by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering and permanent disability correctly reflect the correct amount to which the claimant is entitled? (5)Whether the Tribunal is correct in not awarding any amount towards future medical expenses? 10. (3) Whether the medical expenses fixed by the Tribunal requires interference? (4) Whether the amount fixed by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering and permanent disability correctly reflect the correct amount to which the claimant is entitled? (5)Whether the Tribunal is correct in not awarding any amount towards future medical expenses? 10. Point No.1:- Though the learned Additional Advocate General relied on Ex.P1, the First Information Report given by the Auto-driver Mr.K.Ramesh, Ex.P4, certified copy of the judgment delivered on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Ponneri, Ex.P97, the trip register and the evidence of P.W.8 and the error in the claim petition with respect to lorry Number, in support of his submission that the lorry in question, namely, MDM 4669 did not involve in the accident, the same cannot be accepted. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R., issued by the Judicial Magistrate - II, Ponneri. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the judgment delivered in C.C.No.91/1995, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate - II, Ponneri. Of course, the Registration Number of the lorry in the first page of Ex.P1 is given as MHH 4669 and in the second page of the said report, the Registration Number of the said lorry is stated as MDM 4669. Even in the certified copy of the order in C.C.No.91/1995, Ex.P4, the Registration Number of the said lorry has been mentioned as MDH 4469. If the particulars given in the certified copies of the said documents are correct, we have to accept the said submission of the learned Additional Advocate General with respect to the identity of the said vehicle. So, with a view to verify the correctness of the same, this Court called for the original records from the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Ponneri. In the original F.I.R., given by Mr.K.Ramesh, the auto-driver, it is specifically mentioned the Registration Number of the lorry as MDM 4669. The said Registration Number of the lorry has been correctly given in page 2 of the certified copy of the F.I.R., Ex.P1. But, in the first page of the certified copy of the F.I.R., namely, Ex.P1, while making endorsements by the Police Officials, they seem to have made a mistake in mentioning the Registration Number of the said lorry. In the original order of the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, no Registration Number of the said lorry is mentioned. But, in the first page of the certified copy of the F.I.R., namely, Ex.P1, while making endorsements by the Police Officials, they seem to have made a mistake in mentioning the Registration Number of the said lorry. In the original order of the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, no Registration Number of the said lorry is mentioned. While drafting the said order, the Registration Number of the said lorry was wrongly mentioned as MDH 4469, which is different from the number mentioned in the first page of the F.I.R., namely, Ex.P1. Though the original records sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate - II are not marked in this case, to avoid rendering a wrong decision on wrong fact which is mentioned in the certified copies and also in the interest of justice, we called for the original suo motu and we incline to peruse the statements of M.Rama Subramaniam, K.Ramesh, the auto-driver and the claimant and Mr.Sundara Vadivelu, recorded and marked by the Police Officials on 25.5.2004. Even in the said statements, the above said persons had referred to the Registration Number of the lorry as MDM 4669 only. Even in the Accident Report filed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector showing the Plan prepared on 15.5.1995, he had recorded the place of accident, and the Registration Number of the said lorry was mentioned as MDM 4669. Ultimately, the driver of the lorry, Mr.S.Venkatesan, admitted the offence and paid the fine amount. All these particulars given in Exs.P1, P4, the certified copies of the F.I.R., and the judgment delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate -II, do not reflect the correct facts and so the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General on that basis, cannot be sustained. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General has also relied on Ex.P97, the trip sheet. According to him, the vehicle in question, MDM 4669, did not have any entry to the said place of accident during the relevant time. He also relied on the evidence of P.W.8, through whom the said documents were marked. P.W.8 deposed that in the year 1995, the lorry in question, MDM 4669, was used to carry the materials for construction work. In the cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that there is no entry in Ex.P97 to show that the lorry in question came to the area where the accident took place on 14.5.1995. P.W.8 deposed that in the year 1995, the lorry in question, MDM 4669, was used to carry the materials for construction work. In the cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that there is no entry in Ex.P97 to show that the lorry in question came to the area where the accident took place on 14.5.1995. Merely because such an entry is not available in Ex.P97, it cannot be concluded that the vehicle, namely, MDM 4669 did not involve in the accident, especially the driver of the said vehicle MDM 4669 confessed the occurrence and paid the fine amount before the Criminal Court, as mentioned in the said judgment in Ex.P4 and also in view of the F.I.R., given by the auto-driver, marked as Ex.P1. Hence the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General in this regard cannot be countenanced. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion that the lorry MDM 4669 had involved in the accident. Since no argument was advanced regarding the finding given by the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the lorry driver, we are not dealing with the same, but we confirm the said finding. 12. As held in R.D.Hattangadi v. M/s.Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 S.C. 755 , the quantum of compensation has to be fixed as follows:- "9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident,the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the claimant had become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the claimant and for having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the claimant. That is why it has been said by Courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate, because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings and personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 11. In the case of Ward v. James, 1965(1) All England Reporter 563, it was said as follows:- "Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his "lost years", you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened span, that is, during his expected "years of survival". You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and Juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and Juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well-nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep in in line with the changes in the value of money." 12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,20,110/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2,75,000/- for purchasing wheel-chair and furniture and medical expenses, towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/-, towards permanent disability and for assistance, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. In total, a sum of Rs.44,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued with respect to the quantum only towards medical expenses incurred and the loss of earning as fixed by the Tribunal and with respect to the amounts awarded on the other headings, no argument was advanced and so the same are confirmed. 13. Point Nos.4 and 5:- The claimant preferred Cross Objection to enhance the quantum fixed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Cross Objector submitted, to sustain the Cross Objection, that the amounts awarded towards pain and suffering and permanent disability are on the lower side. She also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses including for wheel chair. Though the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each, they have claimed only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards pain and suffering and permanent disability in the claim petition. So, the said claim for Rs.10,00,000/- each cannot be sustained. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal should have awarded the entire claim of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants towards pain and suffering. So, the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is fixed towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability which was claimed by the claimant. So, we are not inclined to disturb the said quantum. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards assistance. So, the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is fixed towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability which was claimed by the claimant. So, we are not inclined to disturb the said quantum. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards assistance. Since the claimant suffered grievous and multiple injuries resulting in permanent disability of all kinds of movements from chest to foot including urinary bladder, the said amount is not sufficient and so we are inclined to fix a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said heading of assistance. 14. Point No.2:- With respect to the loss of earning, as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Tribunal should not have calculated the said amount on the basis of the income arrived at through the lease, and of the owner's cultivation. By such a method, the correct amount towards loss cannot be arrived at. But the same should be calculated taking into consideration the quantum of income which could be earned through personal cultivation, and the income if such cultivation is made by employing managers. The difference between the said amounts has to be taken as the loss of income. 15. With regard to the agricultural income, the value of the "supervisory" services of the injured have to be estimated. This will not be merely equivalent to the value of the services of a farm-servant or a manager of the property employed for that purpose. It will be more than that because an owner-manager takes extra care in increasing the income year by year and also in increasing the value of the property. 16. In the decision in Dahiben v. Chitrabhai Charabhai, AIR 1982 Guj.188, the Division Bench has held as follows:- "It may be necessary to evaluate as to what would be the additional liability of the dependants in procuring the equivalent services of those which were rendered by the deceased owner as a Manager of the holding. The services of the owner-cum-manager cannot be put on the same par with that of an ordinary manager who has no stake in the property except in the extent of security of his services. Besides the evaluation of the services as a manager, the Tribunal has to evaluate the services of the victim in his capacity as owner also. The services of the owner-cum-manager cannot be put on the same par with that of an ordinary manager who has no stake in the property except in the extent of security of his services. Besides the evaluation of the services as a manager, the Tribunal has to evaluate the services of the victim in his capacity as owner also. A manager is not necessarily interested in managing the properties in a manner which will appreciate its value. It is only an owner-manager who is invariably interested not only in managing it for purposes of earning maximum income out of it but equally interested in managing it in a prudent and farsighted manner as the owner so that the valuation of the property appreciates every year." 17. So, the Tribunal has not properly adopted the method, and no evidence is also available to calculate amount towards loss of agricultural income applying the above said formula. So, we incline to direct the Tribunal to make such calculation adopting the above said method after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. 18. On the basis of Ex.P6, the Tribunal found that the claimant was working as a trainee in a computer Company and fixed the early income at Rs.10,000/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- applying the multiplier of 16. No serious argument was advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General with respect to the same. Hence, we are confirming the said compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 19. Point No.3:- Even with respect to medical expenses, the Tribunal has considered the entire bills as if the medical expenses had been incurred even before the filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal has also not awarded any future medical expenses. The medical bills produced before the Tribunal contain the expenses incurred before 8.7.1996, the date of filing the O.P., and also thereafter. The claimant made a claim towards the medical expenses incurred before filing of the claim petition, namely, 8.7.1996, for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the said fact also. As stated already, the Tribunal also has not considered the future medical expenses to be incurred by the claimant. The claimant also filed petition in C.M.P.No.12903/2004 seeking to receive as additional evidence regarding future medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- both for purchasing a wheel chair and for future medical expenses. As stated already, the Tribunal also has not considered the future medical expenses to be incurred by the claimant. The claimant also filed petition in C.M.P.No.12903/2004 seeking to receive as additional evidence regarding future medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- both for purchasing a wheel chair and for future medical expenses. The said quantum is not fixed on the basis of any material, as the Tribunal has not applied its mind before fixing the said amount on the basis of the materials and so the same cannot be sustained. The claimant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation even under the said headings. So, we incline to set aside the award of the Tribunal to that extent and remit the matter to the Tribunal to fix the quantum towards medical expenses for past and future. Here also the parties are entitled to adduce fresh evidence. 20. In the result, (1) We confirm the findings of the Tribunal that the lorry MDM 4669 had involved in the accident and the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the said lorry; (2) The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, instead of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal; (3) The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability as fixed by the Tribunal; (4) The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal assistance as against the sum of Rs.25,000/-as fixed by the Tribunal; (5) The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of income as a trainee in the computer Company; (6) With respect to the amounts fixed towards loss of income and medical expenses, past and future, including the cost of wheel chair by the Tribunal, the same are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the quantum towards loss of income on the basis of the observations made in this judgment and also the medical expenses referred to above on the basis of evidence. The parties are given liberty to adduce additional evidence. The remand is only to decide these aspects. The parties are given liberty to adduce additional evidence. The remand is only to decide these aspects. (7) The claimant is entitled to interest for the compensation as fixed by the Tribunal; (8) If any other amount is already paid to the claimant, the same can be adjusted, after fixing the final quantum of compensation, by the Tribunal pursuant to the remand. 21. With the above observations, this appeal and the Cross Objections are allowed and remanded only for the purpose for which it is mentioned in this judgment. No costs. 22. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3952/1996 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment without asking further extension of time.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Ramesh & Another