1. Petitioner being the victim of negligent conduct of GREF Employees has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs as per the break-ups given in para-15 of the writ petition, on the grounds taken in the memo of petition, which can be aptly and precisely envisaged as under. 2. Employees of GREF, who were manning duty at Village Shajroo, conducted blasting on 10.9.2004 by filling huge explosive material without taking any precaution or cautioned by warning. While doing so, a big size boulder covering an area of about one kilometer hit the roof of petitioner's house. The house of petitioner collapsed and she suffered grievous/critical injuries and her sister Rubina Akhtar died on spot. FIR No. 102/2004 was lodged in Police Station Mahore under sections 304-A, 337 and 286 of Ranbir Penal Code (hereinafter, for short, RPC), set the police in motion, conducted the investigation and presented the final report in terms of section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Mahore. Petitioner was admitted in local hospital and then shifted to Government Medical College, Jammu on 11.9.2004 under MRD No. 366168 and MLC No. 5215 as a case of "crush injury". The doctors attending her amputated her left leg above knee level and also applied external fixator for treatment of right leg. She was discharged on 8.12.2004. As per the certificate issued by the authorities of Government Medical College she suffered 80% disability. 3. It is also averred that life of petitioner has become burden. She has undergone tremendous pain and suffering and has to undergo throughout her life, is not in a position to contract marriage, not to speak of getting a good match. She has to purchase artificial limb, the cost of which starts from Rs. 1.50 lac and has to spent huge amount for medication and other treatment. 4. Respondents have filed reply. Virtually they have admitted that due to accident the roof of petitioner's house got partially damaged and the petitioner sustained injuries. It is apt to reproduce relevant para of the reply herein: "That Road Budhal-Mohar-Gul has been included in BRDB programme for construction and improvement of NHDL specification with single lane surfacing 301 SPL Care 110 RCC (GREF) was entrusted with the responsibilities of undertaking the works on the said road. It is apt to reproduce relevant para of the reply herein: "That Road Budhal-Mohar-Gul has been included in BRDB programme for construction and improvement of NHDL specification with single lane surfacing 301 SPL Care 110 RCC (GREF) was entrusted with the responsibilities of undertaking the works on the said road. For making the road to NH (Double Lane) specification as sanctioned, formation works was required to be carried out by the Platoon on various road stretches. On 10th Sep 2004, at about 1320 hours, while carrying out the blasting works at Km 71.000 on Budhal-Mohar-Gul road, a heavy boulder was thrown approximately 547 mtrs down towards valley side and hit the roof of a house. Due to this accident, the roof of the house got partially damaged and one Wooden Beam and Column of the house collapsed. The damaged Wooden Beam and Column of the house fell on three girls sitting in a Cot inside the house (the details of the girls including the petitioner are mentioned below) and two of them died and the petitioner injured seriously: (a) Ms. Rubina Akhter, aged 14yrs - Died on spot D/o Mohd. Iqbal. (b) Ms. Rubina Akhter, aged 08 yrs - Died on the way D/o Mohd Issaq while being evacuated to Army MI Room at Mohar. (c) Ms. Kulsoom Akhter, aged 14 yrs - Seriously injured D/o Mohd Issaq." 5. Respondents have also admitted that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability and is entitled to compensation. Accordingly recommendation was made for just compensation. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the reply herein: "The petitioner has filed a petition before the J&K High Court at Jammu through his father Sh. Mohd Issaq S/o Late Ghulam Ali for payment of 80% permanent disability compensation amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs.Fif-teen Lakh only). The work on the above road covering from KM 58.600 to 73.100 has been sanctioned by Government for NH (Double Lane) specification and the platoon started the work w.e.f 21st Dec 2000. For improvement of the road to lay down specification 301 SPL Care 110 RCC (GREF) was continuously doing blasting work from MK 58.600 onwards. The accident has occurred while carrying out the blasting work at KM 71.000. The blasting was a routine affair and was conducted only after taking proper precautions. For improvement of the road to lay down specification 301 SPL Care 110 RCC (GREF) was continuously doing blasting work from MK 58.600 onwards. The accident has occurred while carrying out the blasting work at KM 71.000. The blasting was a routine affair and was conducted only after taking proper precautions. Sentries at suitable places were placed before firing the explosive to raise timely alarm with help of whistle and red flags. Hence, it is incorrect on the part of petitioner to state that due to negligent act of the GREF employees, the accident has occurred. The Sector In-charge conducting the blasting work used only specified quantities of explosives material for the blasting. Hence, it cannot be stated by the petitioner that the accident took place due to excess use of explosive materials. The petitioner has claimed 80% permanent disability compensation amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rs.Fifteen Lakh only) which is not justifiable. However, it is agreed that the petitioner is entitled for permanent disability compensation as per medical recommendations. The amount of compensation will be paid to the petitioner as per the orders of the competent authority. However, it is prayed that the case may please be considered in light of OWP No. 306/05 filed by Sh. Mohd. Issaq v. UOI before Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu for compensation of his other daughter Ms. Rubina Akhter who died in the same accident." 6. Admit. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the case is taken up for final disposal. 7. The Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 has laid down tests for determining damages separately as pecuniary and special damages. It is apt to reproduce paras 9,11,13 & 14. 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 are 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 upto 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 upto 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 and 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. 11. In the case Ward v. James it was said: "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. 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 it in line with the changes in the value of money." 13. This Court in the case of C.K. Subramonilyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act has observed: "In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable." 14. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol.12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said: "Non-pecuniary loss: the Pattern. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol.12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said: "Non-pecuniary loss: the Pattern. — Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases." 8. Respondents have admitted that the petitioner sustained injuries due to the accident which took place due to the use of excess explosive material. They have further admitted that being a case of permanent disability her case has been recommended for grant of compensation and whatever amount will be fixed by the competent authority, the same will be paid to her. However, the respondents have not agreed to pay compensation to her as per the break-ups given in para-15 of the petition. 9. Now the only question which needs to be determined in the petition is to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to. 10. The medical certificate on the file is prima facie proof to the effect that the petitioner has suffered 80% permanent disability. By guess work it can be said and held that she could have earned at least Rs. 3000/- per month while working as a domestic labourer, which she cannot do now. She cannot maintain household goods and other activities the way she would have done, had she not suffered permanent disability. Thus it can be held that the said disability has affected at least 80% of her income capacity. Thus is deprived of at least Rs. 2400/- per month. She was 17 years age at the time of filing of the petition. 11. Thus it can be held that the said disability has affected at least 80% of her income capacity. Thus is deprived of at least Rs. 2400/- per month. She was 17 years age at the time of filing of the petition. 11. It is beaten law of the land that multiplier method is the just method for assessing the compensation. While keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that she is unmarried coupled with the schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act, multiplier of 16 is just and appropriate multiplier applicable in the instant case. Thus the petitioner is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,60,800/- (2400 x 12 x 16). 12. Admittedly, the petitioner has to use artificial limb. As per the record on the file the minimum cost of artificial limb is Rs. 1.50 lacs, thus is entitled to the said amount. 13. The petitioner cannot contract marriage, if at all she could, she cannot have a good match. Thus, virtually her life has become hell and has lost the chances of a wonderful marriageable life which she would have enjoyed had she not suffered 80% permanent disability. While keeping in view guess work, I deem it proper to award rupees one lac under the head "loss of matrimonial life"; 14. Admittedly, the petitioner has to undergo pain and suffering throughout her life. The injuries have shattered her physical frame and is not in a position to face the society, public and family members. Virtually she is dying by inches. In the given circumstances she is entitled to not less than rupees two lacs under the said head, but since she has claimed rupees one lac only, it is granted in her favour. 15. Further, the petitioner has spent at least rupees one lac on medical expenses, boarding and lodging. The amount claimed being meager is allowed. 16. As per the medical certificate on the file, the petitioner has to undergo further treatment, has to replace artificial limb from time to time, has to undergo pain and is required constant medical checkup, so by exercising guess work I deem it proper to award rupees one lac under the head "future treatment". 17. In the given circumstances the petitioner is entitled to damages/compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,10,800/- viz. Rs. 4,60,800/- loss of future income, Rs. 17. In the given circumstances the petitioner is entitled to damages/compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,10,800/- viz. Rs. 4,60,800/- loss of future income, Rs. 1.50 lacs cost of artificial limb, rupees one lac "loss of matrimonial life", rupees one lac for "pain and suffering", rupees one lac for medication, boarding and lodging and rupees one lac for "future treatment". 18. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 10,10,800/- (rupees ten lacs ten thousand and eight hundred) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition till its final realization. Disposed of accordingly.