JUDGMENT (Per V.V.S. Rao, J.) This Judgment deals with both the appeals against O.P.No. 249 of 2002 dated 15-6-2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad (MACT). CM.A. No.2488 of 2007 is by the claimant, Pola Bhadramma, and CM.A.No. 1032 of 2008 is by United India Insurance Company Limited. 2. The claimant Bhadramma is the wife of an Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department. On 23-1-2002 at 2.00 pm, she was pillion riding TVS Moped bearing No. AP 10D 4317 to go to Nacharam. Oil tanker bearing No. AIB 1899 going from Mallapur to Habsiguda dashed against TVS Moped. She fell down. Oil tanker ran over the body and she became unconscious. She was taken to Gandhi hospital. Later she was admitted in COR, Apollo and Vasavi Hospitals one after the other. From the date of accident, Bhadramma never regained consciousness. In spite of treatment, she has been in vegetative state unable to move her limbs having lost all the reflexes. Alleging that she was engaged in saree business and was earning Rs.2,500/- per month, husband on behalf of injured instituted O.P.No.249 of 2002 claiming a compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- under various heads including diagnostic, hospital and medical bills, towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment, loss of consortium and love and affection. 3. The owner of oil tanker remained ex parte. The insurer contested the matter opposing the claim. The negligent driving on the part of the driver of offending oil tanker was disputed. The compensation claimed was opposed as high, excessive and exorbitant. The insurer also filed additional counter alleging that the claimant having sought compensation for continuation of disability, cannot claim any further amount (and that the amount) under the head extra nourishment. 4. In view of the disputed facts in issue, MACT framed the following three issues: (i) whether the petitioner met with accident due to collision between TVS Moped bearing No. A.P. 100 4317 and the lorry/oil tanker bearing No. AIB 1899 resulting in injuries to petitioner, (ii) whether the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry/oil tanker bearing No. AIB 1899, and (iii) whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what extent and from whom. During the trial, husband of claimant gave evidence as P.W.3. During the trial, husband of claimant gave evidence as P.W.3. Doctors who treated Bhadramma for a long time in various hospitals and deposed as P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.Ws. 9 to 10. As many as 35 documents - some of them cumulatively containing large number of bills, prescriptions and other medical documents - were produced. Exs.X-1 to X-5 were also marked. R.W.1 who is the investigator appointed by insurer gave evidence and marked Exs.B-1 to B-8. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs.23,85,248/- towards pecuniary damages and Rs.32,25,050/ towards non-pecuniary damages. The details of these are as below. PECUNIARY DAMAGES 1. Compensation towards medical bills in five books Rs.4,39,415/- 2. Compensation towards diagnostic bills in book No.6 Rs.48,654/- 3. Compensation towards medical treatment, nursing services, attendant charges and physiotherapy charges in book No.7 Rs.9,07,748/- 4. Compensation towards Hospital bills Rs.5,000/- 5. Compensation towards photos bill Rs.400/- 6. Compensation towards feeding expenses RS.2,29,329/- 7. Compensation towards medical bills Rs.35,395/- 8. Compensation towards medical and hospital bills Under Ex.A-24(A) Rs.3,98,832/- 9. Compensation towards doctor charges Rs.30,000/- 10. Loss of salary of husband of petitioner Rs.1,80,473/- 11. Compensation towards injuries (3) @ Rs.20,000/- each Rs.60,000/- 12. Compensation towards pain and sufferance Rs.15,000/- 13. Compensation towards consortium Rs.15,000/- 14. Compensation towards love and affection Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.23,85,248/- NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES 1. Compensation towards future expenditure Rs.25,74,000/- 2. Tilt Table Rs.19,250/- 3. Alfa Bed Rs.7,800/- 4. Loss of future income Rs.6,24,000/- Total Rs.32,25,050/- 5. Learned Counsel for insurer appearing in support of CM.A No.1032 of 2008 and opposing the claimant's appeal, made the following submissions. A ward of salary to husband of injured, award towards love and affection, loss of consortium and separate amount towards injuries as well as pain and suffering is erroneous. M.A.CT. ignored the duplication of bills produced towards medical expenses and amounts awarded towards the same are excessive and not supported by evidence. The amounts awarded towards feeding expenses without there being any evidence is erroneous. Award of compensation towards future medical expenses is unsustainable. He placed reliance on Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Ohanaka (1) (NIMS) 2009 (4) SCJ 516 = (2009) 6 SCC 1 . 6. The amounts awarded towards feeding expenses without there being any evidence is erroneous. Award of compensation towards future medical expenses is unsustainable. He placed reliance on Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Ohanaka (1) (NIMS) 2009 (4) SCJ 516 = (2009) 6 SCC 1 . 6. Learned Counsel for injured claimant in support of her appeal and against the appeal filed by insurance company made submissions seeking enhancement of compensation by awarding amount as claimed towards fracture injuries, pain and suffering, loss of pay to the husband of claimant. In view of rival submissions, the only question that would fall for consideration is whether the award of M.A.CT. is excessive and arbitrary not supported by any evidence. We will take up this aspect under various heads as argued by both the counsel. Before doing so, we may examine salient principles with regard to award of compensation in injury cases especially the cases where the injured lost consciousness, memory and remains vegetative state. 7. In fatal accident cases, compensation amount indeed forms part of estate of the person, who dies in accident. The "estate" connotes 'degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property ... and the term is used synonymously with the "right", "title" and "interest" a person owns and possesses something of value (see Black's legal dictionary). 'Estate' is thus the total property of whatever kind that is owned by a person in case of death due to negligence. One of the main domains of tort measure of damages should be restitutio in integram, which means that an injury has to be compensated as nearly as possible that will put the suffered party in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained wrong for which he is getting compensation. 8. In injury cases, however, the question of the dependents and/or other legal heirs, staking a claim for the amount awarded is not always justified. But the other compensation towards loss of income etc., would go to the person alone. In either case if the legal representatives and dependents who suffer the loss are the same, the amount awarded towards loss of estate and loss of income would go to them alone. But the other compensation towards loss of income etc., would go to the person alone. In either case if the legal representatives and dependents who suffer the loss are the same, the amount awarded towards loss of estate and loss of income would go to them alone. In Gobald Motor Services v. R.M.K. Veluswamy (2) AIR 1962 SC 1 , while approving the following passage, Supreme Court noticed the distinction in the elucidation of Lord Mac Millan in Daviis v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries (3) 1942 AC 601. The rates of amount in the two cases are quite distinct and independent. Under the Law Reform Act, the rate of amount is for the benefit of the deceased's estate, under the Fatal Accidents Acts, the rate of amount is for the benefit of the deceased's dependents in as much as the basis of both the cases of the amount may be the same viz., of the third party which has caused deceased's death. It was natural to provide that the rates of amount should be without prejudice one to the other. It is quite a different thing to read the provision as meaning that in assessing the damages payable to dependents under the Fatal Accidents Acts, no account is to be taken of any benefit which the dependents may indirectly obtain from an award under the Law Reforms Act through participation in the deceased's estate.. .. .. .. it is quite appropriate that any benefit taken indirectly by a dependent by way of a participation that any benefit taken indirectly by a dependent by way of a participation in an award under the Law Reform Act should be taken into account in estimating the damages awarded to that dependent under the Fatal Accidents Act. Heads of damages 9. To our mind even in cases, which are not fatal accidents, the person wronged may be awarded the amount towards loss of amenities, loss of estate, loss of services to estate etc. But the said amount will be exclusively at the disposal of person wronged and the legal representatives cannot inherit such amount. Therefore the actual or perceived loss caused to legal representatives of the injured person is not relevant while considering the award of compensation (in injury cases) under various heads. This has same bearing on the various types of heads under which compensation is awarded. Therefore the actual or perceived loss caused to legal representatives of the injured person is not relevant while considering the award of compensation (in injury cases) under various heads. This has same bearing on the various types of heads under which compensation is awarded. Winfield and Jolowicz in their textbook on Tort (2006, 17th edition, second reprint 2009) described various heads of damages. These are shown in the following table. Heads of damages (personal injury cases) I Pecuniary loss Lump sum or periodical payment Loss of earning capacity Medical expenses (including expenses for services) Other pecuniary loss (e.g., car for private use, pension rights, barriers to obtain health insurance, loss of opportunity of enhancing reputation, loss of opportunity to enjoy hobbies) Non-pecuniary loss I Pain and suffering Loss of amenity Loss of expectation of life 10. In K. Sapana v. B. Apparao (4) 1987 (2) ALT 349 , this Court considered (a) pain and suffering, (b) loss of amenities of life, (c) loss of expectation of life, (d) disfigurement, and (e) discomfort and inconvenience, as possible heads of non-pecuniary damages. Further, as held by this Court, loss of earnings or earning capacity are again considered under the headings like loss of past earnings upto date of trial, and prospective loss of earnings. The probable future earnings and potential future earnings are also relevant issues to be considered. Value of perquisites including free boarding and lodging, loss of career, unused earning capacity etc., are considered in the case of earning members. Irrespective of the fact whether the injured is earning member or not, the medical and hospital expenses are to be awarded to all. These include the actual medical expenses incurred to the nursing services at home, special diet and nourishment, employmeNt substitute and the like. Non-pecuniary damages (i) Pain and suffering 11. A question often arises, when the Court considers the award of non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering. When the injured person is unconscious from the date of accident or in coma or in a vegetative state whether amounts can be awarded for pain and suffering. In K. Sapana (4 supra), this Court elucidated as to what is pain and suffering. In P. Satyanarayana v. P. Babu Rajendra Prasad (5) 1987 (2) ALT 328 , this Court dealt with quantum to be awarded for pain and suffering depending on the decided cases. In K. Sapana (4 supra), this Court elucidated as to what is pain and suffering. In P. Satyanarayana v. P. Babu Rajendra Prasad (5) 1987 (2) ALT 328 , this Court dealt with quantum to be awarded for pain and suffering depending on the decided cases. Whether a person who went into coma or became unconscious from the moment accident occurred, can be awarded compensation for pain and suffering? Such a person, needless to mention, would not suffer any pain and even if pain is experienced at the moment of impact due to accident, it is not possible to assess the same. Winfield and Jolowicz referring to James v. Woodall Duckham Construction Co. Ltd. (6) (1969) 1 WLR 903 opined that damages under this head, "may be lower if the claimant suffered no pain because he remained unconscious." We do not see any serious objection for applying the same principle even in the case of unconscious claimants. We also agree with the view in P. Satyanarayana (5 supra) that monetary compensation has to be awarded for pain and suffering even in cases of unconscious claimants. In this case, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. We, however, feel that an amount of Rs.l,00,000/- for pain and suffering would be proper. (ii) Loss of amenities 12. The physical injury to the wronged whether it is reversible or irreversible would certainly puts off in some degree or other the ability to enjoy suffers. It takes within its fold all the things which renders the claimant's enjoyment of life partial or restrictive. For instance, injury to legs disables claimant's to run or walk freely, injury to hands deprives many things that hands do and claimants lose amenities. This Court in K. Sapana (4 supra) approved the following description in the damages by Kemp and Kemp: "there is a head of damage which sometimes called loss of amenities, the man made blind by the accident will no longer be able to see familiar things he has seen all his life; the man who has had both legs removed and will never go upon his walking excursions ~ things of that kind - loss of amenities." The amounts awarded under this head vary from injury to injury. Loss of legs, spinal injuries and other orthopaedic injuries form one category and brain damage, paralysis, loss of eyes etc., form another category. Loss of legs, spinal injuries and other orthopaedic injuries form one category and brain damage, paralysis, loss of eyes etc., form another category. The amounts awarded in the case of brain damage or paralysis are always been higher as observed by this Court in P. Satyanarayana (5 supra). 13. The consideration of award under this head may not always depend on the evidence except the medical evidence, which remains undisputed. It is brought to the notice of this Court that learned Tribunal saw the claimant, who was brought to the Court. She was not able to move her limbs or grasp or communicate. She remained lying always and shall remain so through out her life unless some miracle happens. The claimant was admitted in an unconscious state in the hospital. She lost her senses and all faculties. This is supported by the evidence of P.W.3 (husband of claimant), P.Ws. 4 and 5 (Doctors) and P.W.6 (Physiotherapist). The claimant suffered irreversible brain damage. Learned Tribunal did not award any specific amount under this head. In the memorandum of grounds also, appellant has not claimed any amounts under this head. But it is well settled now that it is always open to this Court to award sum~, which may be higher than claimed under particular heads of damage and also award non-pecuniary damages even if they are not claimed provided that total compensation does not exceed the total claim. Be it noted that under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it shall be the duty of Tribunal to award "just" compensation to the injured or dependants of the deceased as the case may be. Having regard to this, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as the claimant who is aged about 46 years suffered brain damage besides serious orthopaedic deformities and remained vegetative. (iii) Loss of expectation of life 14. Under this head, learned Tribunal did not award any sum. The claimant is painfully "living dead". Therefore, she is entitled to conventional amount as her life has been virtually shortened by the culpable accident. In P. Satyanarayana (5 supra), which is a case of unconscious claimant, this Court awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000jtowards pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Keeping this in view, we award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under this head. (iv) Disfigurement 15. In P. Satyanarayana (5 supra), which is a case of unconscious claimant, this Court awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000jtowards pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Keeping this in view, we award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under this head. (iv) Disfigurement 15. In K. Sapana (4 supra), this Court recognized disfigurement as an important element in assessing damages. It was pointed out that where the injured woman is housewife large awards are made for disfigurement. In this case, appellant suffered accident and got "post traumatic vegetative state with preserved brain stem functions". She suffered three injuries, namely, dislocation of right elbow joint, fracture at right radial head undisplaced fractures at right radial head, undisplaced fractures of right radial and ulna styloid processes. Due to injuries 2 and 3, she became a vegetative living organ. Thus we have a case of disfigurement where the victim of accident suffered extreme disfigurement. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to award nominal sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under this head. (v) Discomfort and inconvenience 16. This is regarded as a form of pain and suffering. If the regular planned or unplanned activity of the injured is disrupted or resulted in inconvenience, it is legitimate to claim amounts under this head. On the day of accident, appellant along with her brother-in-law (he died in the accident, his wife and two children filed O.P.No.250 of 2002) was going on some domestic work. No evidence is available on record as to discomfort and inconvenience suffered by appellant. Therefore, we are not inclined to award any amount under this head. Pecuniary damages 17. The pecuniary damages can be for the sake of convenience considered under two heads: (1) Non-medical compensation, and (2) Medical and hospital expenses. The non-medical pecuniary compensation can again be considered under loss of earning capacity, loss of past earnings (up to the date of trial), prospective loss of earnings, probable future earnings, potential future earnings (after the accident), and loss of career. First we shall deal with some of these. (i) Loss of earnings 18. The appellant is a housewife. Though an allegation was made that she was engaged in business in sarees at her house and earning Rs.2,500/- per month, there is no evidence to accept the plea. First we shall deal with some of these. (i) Loss of earnings 18. The appellant is a housewife. Though an allegation was made that she was engaged in business in sarees at her house and earning Rs.2,500/- per month, there is no evidence to accept the plea. But the fact remains that P.W.3, husband of appellant, whose needs have to be taken care of by the appellant, is certainly denied of her services as a housewife. In such a situation, awarding the amount under the heading 'loss of earnings' cannot be ruled out. In UPSRTC v. Anita Verma (7) 2007 ACJ 962 (Del.) arose out of an accident involving RTC bus and a car. Three members of the family travelling in the car died. Anita Verma and Ashish Verma sustained injuries. Claim by dependants of Anita Verma (house wife) was rejected by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the ground that the allegation that she was expert in marking Kundan jewellery was not proved by any evidence. However the Tribunal awarded compensation treating her contribution as housewife. Delhi High Court affirmed the view observing as under. The learned Tribunal has rejected the testimony of the husband. Learned Tribunal has noted that the persons whom the deceased was procuring have not been examined. Compensation has been worked out treating the deceased being a house wife. In view of the decision of the Apex Court that even a housewife contributes to the family, learned Tribunal has treated that contribution of the deceased to the family could be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. Deducting 50 per cent as the personal spending of the deceased, compensation has been awarded by treating the loss to the family at Rs.l8,000/- per annum. Multiplier adopted is 17. Compensation worked is Rs.3,06,000/-. Rs.5,000/- for funeral charges and Rs.20,000/-for pain and suffering of the family on account of the untimely death of the deceased have been awarded. ... ... ... I agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents for the reason that contribution of the housewife quantified in material terms is a notional income which goes to the family. Question of appropriating one-third or one-half as the personal expenses of the deceased housewife does not arise. The contribution of the housewife to the family has to be allowed in toto to the family. (emphasis supplied) 19. Question of appropriating one-third or one-half as the personal expenses of the deceased housewife does not arise. The contribution of the housewife to the family has to be allowed in toto to the family. (emphasis supplied) 19. Therefore the notional sum as contribution of house wife to the family can always be the basis for determining pecuniary loss. While doing so, the traditional method of deducting 25% or 50% towards personal expenditure is dispensed with. Applying the same, we deem it appropriate to assume the age of appellant as 46 years, her contribution to the family would be Rs.3,000/- per month. By reason of the accident, family lost her services and, therefore, applying the multiplier 13 as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (S) 2009 (4) SCJ 91 = 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402 (SC) = (2009) 6 SCC 1 21 and without deducting any amount towards personal expenditure, an amount of Rs.4,68,000/- can be awarded under this head floss of future earnings. In appropriate cases, the Tribunal can even award loss of past earnings, prospective loss of earnings in addition to loss of earning capacity. But in this case, there is no evidence as to appellant's likely earnings in future. Therefore, we are not inclined to award any amount under these heads. (ii) Compensation for injuries 20. P.W.10 and P.W.13 are doctors, who attended on the appellant for a long time. Bodily injuries the appellant suffered noticed herein above lead to catastrophic neurological injuries taking the appellant to a stage of irreversible state of human existence. If such an act occurred due to negligence of the offending lorry/oil tanker, the insurer is certainly liable to give just compensation for the injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- each for three injuries. In a case of this nature, there cannot be scale of damages nor comparable figures. The Court or Tribunal must consider the background of each case, standard of living of the injured and that of the family and the possibility of the cure. Any negative medical opinion regarding cure should go to the benefit of the injured. There is abundant medical evidence, in this case, on record that chances of appellant recouping to normal stage are bleak and nearly impossible. Any negative medical opinion regarding cure should go to the benefit of the injured. There is abundant medical evidence, in this case, on record that chances of appellant recouping to normal stage are bleak and nearly impossible. Therefore, under this head, we are of considered opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- each to external three injuries and an amount of Rs.l,00,000/- towards neurological injury and brain damage (in all Rs.2,50,000/-) can be awarded to appellant. (iii) Loss of salary for husband of appellant 21. On behalf of appellant, her husband (P.W.3) got examined his colleague as P.W.5, who is an Executive Engineer. He deposed that P.W.3 availed earned leave from 24-1-2002 to 23-5-2002 and half-pay leave from 24-5-2002 to 02-2-2003 for 255 days. He produced Ex.A-16 certificate containing details of sanction of leave, according to which, P.W.3 was on leave for 375 days. He also deposed that at the relevant time, salary of P.W.3 was Rs.19,342/- and during the leave period there was loss of Rs.2,41,775/-. Based on this evidence and also placing reliance on Anita Verma (7 supra), the counsel for appellant submits that as the loss of salary was occasioned by the accident, the insurer is liable to pay the loss of salary. Under this head, Tribunal awarded Rs.l,80,473/- as pecuniary damages. While dealing with loss of earnings, we have already considered the possible contribution of appellant to the family as housewife. Therefore the claim for loss of salary cannot be allowed especially when he was on earned leave and half-pay leave for a period of 255 days. To that extent, we are not able to agree with the contention of learned counsel for claimant. (iv) Medical and hospital expenses 22. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation towards medical bills, compensation towards diagnostic bills, compensation towards medical treatment (including nursing services, attendant charges and physiotherapy charges), compensation towards hospital bills, compensation towards doctors' charges and compensation towards future medical expenditure. The appellant relies on Exs. A-14, A-17 to A-19 and the evidence of husband (P.W.3) and concerned doctors and physiotherapist (P.W.4, 6, 7 and 12). The insurance company raised objection with regard to certain payments made twice under the heading medical bills. This amount mentioned in Ex.B-5 was proved by R.W.l, who is investigator, appointed by the insurer. According to him, the said amount was deducted from the medical bills for arriving at Rs.2,63,456/-. The insurance company raised objection with regard to certain payments made twice under the heading medical bills. This amount mentioned in Ex.B-5 was proved by R.W.l, who is investigator, appointed by the insurer. According to him, the said amount was deducted from the medical bills for arriving at Rs.2,63,456/-. This is not disputed by appellant's counsel and he fairly admits that the said amount is excessive claim, which has to be deducted from medical bills. 23. The counsel for insurer (appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1032 of 2008) impugns the award of the Tribunal insofar as the same is concerned, with medical expenses and hospital expenses raising following grounds. (As per the evidence of KW.1, the claimant incurred expenditure of Rs.8,17,758/-). Learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.18,65,044/- towards medical bills, hospital bills under the heading pecuniary damages. The Tribunal was in error in awarding Rs.1,80,473/- towards loss of salary of P.W.3. In the case of injuries, the amount towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection cannot be grated. The Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs.6,24,000/- towards loss of future income. The amount awarded towards feeding expenses (Rs.2,29,329/-) is excessive. The award of interest at 6% per annum is illegal. For the sake of convenience, these submissions can be considered under different heads. 24. At this stage, we may refer to the observations made by Supreme Court in NIMS (1 supra). It is a case of medical negligence. During a surgical procedure by cardiothoracic surgeon of NIMS, Prasanth developed acute paraplegia with a complete loss of control over the lower limbs. He also suffered other complications forcing prolonged hospitalization.. He instituted a complaint before a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the Commission) claiming RsA.61 crores as compensation. The Commission awarded Rs.14.00 lakhs to complainant and Rs.1.5 lakhs to complainant's parents. Before the Supreme Court, the claimant raised different claims. The caution to be exercised by the Court while considering various claims is explained by Supreme Court in the following passage. We must emphasise that the court has to strike a 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. 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 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 minute or a yard. 25. What is the effect of a person getting injured in an accident on the family? The Supreme Court observed in this regard as follows. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. 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 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 so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity. 26. Insofar as various claims made by the complainant, the Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs.7.2 lakhs towards expenses for driver-cum-attendant. For this purpose, the working life upto 65 years was considered and an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month for a period of 30 years was thought proper and capitalized at Rs.7.2 lakhs. An amount of Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of 30 years towards nursing care making a total sum of Rs.14.40 lakhs was awarded. In addition a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of 30 years for physiotherapy was considered proper and an amount of Rs.10.80 lakhs was awarded. An amount of Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of 30 years towards nursing care making a total sum of Rs.14.40 lakhs was awarded. In addition a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of 30 years for physiotherapy was considered proper and an amount of Rs.10.80 lakhs was awarded. The Supreme Court awarded Rs.25.00 lakhs towards continuous medical aid and Rs.25,00 lakhs towards loss of future earnings. An amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards pain and suffering was also awarded. While calculating this amount, the working life of complainant thereunder was considered as 65 years and amount was calculated for a period of 30 years from the date of the award of the Commission. (iv) (a) Medical expenses 27. The accident occurred on 23-1-2002. At that time the appellant was aged about 46 years. The passersby on the road shifted appellant to Gandhi Hospital. Presumably after some treatment, she was shifted to CDR Hospital. She was treated as in-patient from 23-1-2002 to 26-1-2002. Her health condition was deteriorating. Therefore, she was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderguda, where she was in-patient from January 2002 to first week of November 2002. Thereafter, appellant was hospitalized at Vasavi Hospital, Secunderabad, from 07-11-2002 to 14-3-2003 and again from 27-5-2003 to 30-5-2003. The appellant was thus given treatment in four hospitals from 23-1-2002 to 30-5-2003 for a period more than a year. Such being the situation, it is not unusual that P.W.3 may not have kept all the bills for claiming the medical expenses incurred. In K. Sapana (4 supra), this Court observed that, "medical expenses can be compensated even though the claimant is not able to avail bills or vouchers either fully or partly provided there is other acceptable evidence of the reasonable expenditure that must have been incurred." 28. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.20,94,373/- under this heading. Nursing charges, attendant charges, doctor bills and feeding expenses have to be separately considered in this appeal. P.W.12, P.W.7 and R.W.1 are the witnesses who speak about medical expenses. R.W.1 is investigator appointed by the insurer. He admitted that an amount of Rs.25,000/- to COR Hospital, Rs.6,34,832/- to Apollo Hospital, Rs.71,365/to Vasavi Hospital and Rs.1,11,000/- to Life Hospital was incurred for the medical expenses of the appellant. Therefore, without any controversy, an amount of Rs.8,17,758/is admitted to have been incurred towards medical bills. R.W.1 is investigator appointed by the insurer. He admitted that an amount of Rs.25,000/- to COR Hospital, Rs.6,34,832/- to Apollo Hospital, Rs.71,365/to Vasavi Hospital and Rs.1,11,000/- to Life Hospital was incurred for the medical expenses of the appellant. Therefore, without any controversy, an amount of Rs.8,17,758/is admitted to have been incurred towards medical bills. Further, P.W.12 who is an employee of Apollo Hospital, Incharge of bills preparation, admitted to receiving Rs.6,34,393/- under Ex.A-19 bill. P.W.7 is doctor at Vasavi Hospital. He admitted to receiving Rs.73,005/-. He also deposed that an amount of Rs.38,500/- was paid directly to the doctor. Dr. Manohar Reddy as P.WA admitted to receiving Rs.38,000/- towards Doctor's charges. Therefore the evidence of P.WA, P.W.7 and P.W.12 as well as EX.A-19 justify the claim towards medical bill of Rs.8,17,758/- and Rs.38,000/- towards Doctor's charges. Be it noted that the bills raised by various hospitals and admitted by R.W.1 also included nursing charges during hospitalization. Therefore, an amount of Rs.8,55,758/- can be awarded under the heading medical expenses, which are actually incurred. (iv) (b) Physiotherapy, nursing and attendant charges 29. Awarding of nursing and attendant charges at the home becomes necessary in cases of paralysis, coma or paraplegia. Even where a family member like husband or wife, brother or sister or near relative attends to injured after discharge from the hospital, the claimant can recover expenses for the value of services rendered by such relative. The appellant is a lady. She can neither speak nor take care of herself. She constantly requires nursing services. She also requires presence of a nurse most of the day. When the award was passed on 15-6-2007, the claimant was about 50 years. Therefore providing nursing charges for a period of 15 years from the date of award, at Rs.2,000/- per month (as is awarded in NIMS (1 supra)) would be proper. Therefore, an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- is awarded for nursing charges. 30. In addition to nurse, a driver-cum-attendant may be necessary for appellant for her hospital visits, which may not be infrequent. In the present inflationary days, it is not possible to get a driver for less than Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, at that rate driver-cum-attendant salary can be awarded for a period of 15 years. An amount of Rs.7,20,000/- is therefore awarded for driver-cum-attendant charges. 31. That the appellant requires physiotherapy continuously stands proved. P.WA is a consultant neurosurgeon at Apollo Hospital. Therefore, at that rate driver-cum-attendant salary can be awarded for a period of 15 years. An amount of Rs.7,20,000/- is therefore awarded for driver-cum-attendant charges. 31. That the appellant requires physiotherapy continuously stands proved. P.WA is a consultant neurosurgeon at Apollo Hospital. He advised continuous physiotherapy even after discharge from the hospital also. P.W.I0 is consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Apollo Hospital. He also advised physiotherapy. P.W.6 is physiotherapist. He deposed that he gave 'limbs physiotherapy' and 'chest physiotherapy' from 15-3-2003 to 30-11-2003 and charged Rs.30,750/-. He also charged Rs.36,500/- at Rs.I00/- per day during the period from 01-1-2004 to 30-6-2004. In view of the evidence, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.67,250/- In addition, we are inclined to award at Rs.4,000/- per month for physiotherapy for a period of 15 years, which comes to Rs.7,20,000/-. In total, we award Rs.18,67,250/- for physiotherapy, nursing and attendant charges. (iv) (c) Special diet and feeding expenses 32. P.W.3 filed Ex.A-14, the statement of feeding expenses showing total amount spent for extra nourishment and nutrition of appellant at Rs.2,29,400/-. This is the special diet during hospitalization from 26-1-2002 to 07-11-2002 at Apollo hospital, from 07-11-2002 to 14-3-2003 at Vasavi hospital, and thereafter at the house. P.W.4 who is consultant neuro-surgeon at Apollo hospital admitted that the diet and its schedule in EX.A-14 was advised by him. A perusal of EX.A-14 shows that during relevant period from 01-4-2004 to 30-4-2004 daily menu of appellant was two eggs each at four times, coconut water, butter milk, sweet lemon juice, tomato soup, corn soup and diet supplement "Resource". Subsequently from 01-5-2005 to 31-5-2005, appellant was fed protein-X and normal liquid diet - apple juice, barley soup etc. This is certainly expensive and the appellant was forced to sustain on protein rich food only because of the accident to appellant. Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, credence can be given to the evidence of P.W.4 and EX.A-14 statement. This amount of Rs.2,29,400/- therefore can be awarded. (iv) (d) Compensation towards future medical expenses 33. In addition to the cost of hospital and medical expenses actually incurred by the injured, it is just to award compensation for future medical treatment. It is no doubt true that appellant is totally immobile and in a vegetative state. In the claim petition, an amount of Rs.50,87,168/- was claimed towards future medical expenses. In addition to the cost of hospital and medical expenses actually incurred by the injured, it is just to award compensation for future medical treatment. It is no doubt true that appellant is totally immobile and in a vegetative state. In the claim petition, an amount of Rs.50,87,168/- was claimed towards future medical expenses. Reliance was placed on Exs.A-26 and A-35. Learned Tribunal determined monthly sums of Rs.5,000/- for medicines, Rs.3,000/- for surgical items, Rs.3,000/- for physiotherapy charges, Rs.l,000/- for feeding charges, Rs.l,000/- for doctor's consultation, Rs.3,000/- for attender's salary and Rs.500/- for transport charges. The total expenditure of Rs.16,500/- was taken as basis and applying multiplier 13, an amount of Rs.25,74,000/was awarded. Insofar as physiotherapy and attender-cum-driver expenses are concerned, we have already dealt with separately. The claim towards charges for medicines, surgical items, feeding charges, doctor's consultation is justified. But while determining this amount, can we apply the multiplier method? 34. In NIMS (1 supra), the Supreme Court observed that, "the expenditure that the complainant incurred and is likely to incur in the future and the possibility of the injured recovering is bleak, matters cannot be taken care of under the multiplier method." Therefore the approach of the Tribunal in applying multiplier is not justified. In NIMS (1 supra), the Supreme Court awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for future medical expenses. That was a cage where the injured who became paraplegic and was aged about 30 years on the date of the award. In the case on hand, when the award was passed the appellant was aged about 50 years and, therefore, we deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards future medical expenses surgical items and nutritious food. We are of the opinion that prudent investment of this amount would certainly give reasonable rate of interest, which would be sufficient to meet monthly medical expenses for appellant. (v) Miscellaneous items 35. In addition to conventional headings, the Tribunal also awarded amounts of Rs.19,250/- towards tilt table and Rs.7,800/- towards alfa bed, which are essential for an immobile patient to prevent bed sores. The appellant is entitled for the said amount. 36. In view of the above discussion, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.51,97,458/- (Rupees fifty one lakh ninety seven thousand four hundred and fifty eight only)towards pecuniary damages. The appellant is entitled for the said amount. 36. In view of the above discussion, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.51,97,458/- (Rupees fifty one lakh ninety seven thousand four hundred and fifty eight only)towards pecuniary damages. We also direct that on the total amount of Rs.63,97,458/- (Rupees sixty three lakh ninety seven thousand four hundred and fifty eight only) awarded by us, the insurer shall pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of O.P., till the date of realization. 37. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are accordingly disposed of.