JUDGMENT Dilip B. Bhosale , J.—This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by Insurance Company is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.2006 rendered by the Prl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore in MVC. NO.1876/2001. By the impugned Judgment, the claim petition filed by respondent-claimant (for short 'the claimant') has been allowed in part awarding a compensation of Rs.2,35,78,159.50 together with costs and interest at 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.2,31,94,159.00, i.e. after deducting Rs.3,84,000/-, awarded towards attendant charges, from the date of the petition to the date of actual payment/deposit, against the appellant-Insurance Company (for short "the appellant") and respondent no.3 jointly and severally. The claimant who was 35 years old at the relevant time, was Senior Specialist - Software, working with Ericsson Communications India Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of Rs.1,48,291/- per month. On 29.1.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. he was travelling in a Tempo Trax from Sakharayapatna to Kadur gate. It is alleged, the driver of the Tempo Trax drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and when the vehicle reached near Lakshrhipuram on Chickmagalur - Kadur road, it rammed into a tree. As a result of the impact, the petitioner sustained injures. He was immediately admitted to Government Hospital, Kadur and then to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter, he was treated at other hospitals in Bangalore. He claims that he had spent Rs.6,00,000/- till filing of the petition towards medical treatment. He further claims, the injuries suffered by him in the accident rendered him permanently disabled and that affected him mentally and financially. Hence, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 9 crores form the respondents of the injuries/disabilities sustained by him in the said accident. 2. The defence set up by the appellant in short is that the claimant was a fare – paying passenger travelling in a private vehicle insured by them and therefore, he is not covered and entitled for the compensation as prayed for in view of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further, it is the case of the appellant that since the insured had paid premium of Rs. 1,000/- to cover personal accident risk of 10 persons, at the most the claimant would be entitled to an amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. Further, it is the case of the appellant that since the insured had paid premium of Rs. 1,000/- to cover personal accident risk of 10 persons, at the most the claimant would be entitled to an amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at considerable length and with their assistance gone through the entire material placed before us. 4. Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned Judgment on two grounds. Firstly, in view of the admissions given by the claimant in his cross-examination that he was a fare paying passenger, he is not entitled for any compensation as prayed. In support of this contention he Invited our attention to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy i.e Private Car 'B' Policy which indemnifies the insured in the event of an accident caused by/or arising out of a use of motor car against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in motor car, provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward but except so far as is necessary to meet the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), they shall not be liable whether such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. He also invited our attention to the cross-examination of the claimant in support of this contention. Secondly, he challenged the quantum of compensation awarded in respect of claim for disability/loss of future income, loss of earning during the period of treatment and towards the loss of future prospects. In other words he did not challenge the amounts of compensation awarded under other heads. 5. Firstly, we would like to deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding liability of the insurer to pay compensation as prayed. Mr. Seetharam Rao, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset invited our attention to section (ii) of the Private Car 'B' policy and sections 146 & 149 of the Act to contend that the claimant was a fare paying passenger and hence is not covered by the policy. In support of this contention he invited our attention to the cross-examination of the claimant. In support of this contention he invited our attention to the cross-examination of the claimant. The relevant portion to which our attention was specifically drawn reads thus: On the date of accident I had been to Hassan and from Hassan I had been to Sakharayapatna to meet my friend. From Hassan to Sakkarayapatna I went by bus. While returning from Sakkarayapatna I came to bus stand around 9.30p.m. as buses were not available hence I boarded the tempo trax in question. In the said tempo trax apart from driver there are 5 other travelers. From Sakkarayapatna to Kaddur I was proceeding in the said vehicle. The said tempo trax was stationed adjacent to bus stand. Before accident driver of the tempo trax did not collect any fare from me. Before collecting the fare the accident in question took place. I do not know who was the owner of the said tempo trax as on the date of the accident. On the date of accident I was not knowing the name and address of the driver of the said tempo trax. It is true that on the date of accident I was not familiar either with the driver of with the owner of the said tempo trax. (emphasis supplied) In the light of the admissions given by the claimant, he submitted that going to the bus stand in the night at about 9.30pm clearly shows that the claimant did not have any arrangement to travel to his destination and since bus (public transport) was not available he boarded the Tempo Trax in question. Along with the claimant there were five other persons in the Tempo Trax. He did not know the name of the owner or the driver of the tempo Trax. This fact coupled with the admissions given by the claimant that the driver of the Tempo Trax did not collect any fare from him and that before collecting fare the accident occurred, according to learned counsel for the appellant, clearly show that he was travelling in the Tempo Trax as fare paying passenger. In view thereof as per the terms and conditions of the policy the claimant is not entitled for the compensation as prayed in the claim petition. 6. On the other hand Mr. In view thereof as per the terms and conditions of the policy the claimant is not entitled for the compensation as prayed in the claim petition. 6. On the other hand Mr. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimant fairly submitted that we need not enter into an issue/question whether fare paying passenger is entitled for compensation and/or is covered by such policy and he submitted that if on facts of the case it is held that the claimant was a fare paying passenger he would not be entitled for any compensation as prayed in view of the terms and conditions of the policy. He however, submitted that on facts it cannot be stated that the claimant was a fare paying passenger in the Tempo Trax. He submitted, from the admission given by the claimant itself it is clear that he had not paid any fare to the driver of the Tempo Trax. Whether the driver of the Tempo Trax used to ply his vehicle on a particular route as a taxi on hire or reward by charging fare from strangers is not established by the appellant. He then submitted that the best person who could have stated whether the Tempo Trax driver used to collect fare from the passengers was either driver himself or owner of the vehicle or any other passenger who was in the vehicle at the relevant time and since the appellant failed to examine any such witness, an inference on the basis of the bald admissions given by the claimant in the cross -examination cannot be drawn. 7. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties we are not examining the issue/question as to whether a fare paying passenger in a private vehicle having Private Car "B" policy is entitled for compensation. Therefore, what remains for us to examine is the factual matrix so as to find out whether the claimant was fare paying passenger and/or whether the appellant proved on the basis of the evidence that the claimant was fare paying passenger in the Tempo Trax. 8. In the claim petition the claimant had stated that when he saw the Tempo Trax, he found that couple of people were talking to the driver and were asking him whether they can be dropped near Kadur gate and the driver said 'yes'. Nothing further was stated. 8. In the claim petition the claimant had stated that when he saw the Tempo Trax, he found that couple of people were talking to the driver and were asking him whether they can be dropped near Kadur gate and the driver said 'yes'. Nothing further was stated. There was no talk about fare to be paid to the driver in the pleadings. Even in the examination-in-chief the claimant does not state anything about fare being fixed for travelling in the Tempo Trax. In the cross-examination, he stated "before accident the driver of the Tempo Trax did not collect any fare from him and that the accident occurred before collecting the fare". Though these admissions given in the cross-examination coupled with other admission such as, the claimant did not know the driver and the owner of the Tempo Trax, prima facie support the appellant's contention, the question is whether the admissions would be sufficient to draw a definite inference that the claimant was fare paying passenger in the Tempo Trax. We have gone through the cross-examination of the claimant. It is not clear from the cross-examination as to what was the question put to the witness in the cross-examinations to elicit the aforesaid admissions. The first admission namely 'before accident driver of the Tempo Trax did not collect any fare from him' clearly shows that no fare was paid by the claimant. This admission, if read in isolation, is not sufficient to draw an inference that he was supposed to pay fare to the driver. At the same time an inference can also be drawn on the basis of this admission that since he was not supposed to pay any fare, the driver did not collect fare from him. The next admission namely 'before collecting the fare the accident in question took place' suggests that he was supposed to pay the fare but it was not paid/collected. It is not clear as to what question was put to the witness to elicit this admission from him. It is possible that the question put to the witness was "is it correct that the accident occurred even before the fare was collected", and in view of his answer in the affirmative the court recorded the aforesaid admission. It is not clear as to what question was put to the witness to elicit this admission from him. It is possible that the question put to the witness was "is it correct that the accident occurred even before the fare was collected", and in view of his answer in the affirmative the court recorded the aforesaid admission. Similarly it is possible that the question put to the witness was "is it correct that even before collecting fare the accident in question took place". Since the answer was in the affirmative, such admission was recorded by the learned Judge. These questions, presuppose, that fare was to be paid. However, we cannot assume either in favour of the appellant or the claimant. In any case, it is not possible, solely on the basis of the aforesaid admission - (i.e. before collecting fare the accident in question took place) to draw an inference that the respondent claimant was also supposed to pay the fare and/or had boarded the Tempo Trax after negotiating fare for travelling from Sakharayapatna to Kadur. He does not state, before collecting fare "from him" the accident in question took place. In view thereof, it cannot be stated that the Insurance Company has proved that the driver of Tempo Trax used to ply his vehicle as a taxi/charging fare from passengers and that the claimant had negotiated fare with him and was supposed to pay fare to the driver. It was open to the appellant to examine either the driver of the Tempo Trax or the owner of the Tempo Trax or one of the passengers travelling therein along with the claimant or ought to have brought some other evidence on record to support their case that the driver and the owner of the Tempo Trax were plying it on a particular route as taxi and that the claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as a fare paying passenger. Merely because he had stated that he did not know the owner or the driver or their names, does not necessarily mean that he was travelling in the Tempo Trax as a fare-paying passenger. He could be a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle. In the circumstances we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant failed to prove that the claimant was travelling in the Tempo Trax at the relevant time as a fare paying passenger. 9. He could be a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle. In the circumstances we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant failed to prove that the claimant was travelling in the Tempo Trax at the relevant time as a fare paying passenger. 9. That takes us to consider the submission of learned counsel for the appellant whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. In order to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the parties, we re-produce the amounts of compensation awarded under different heads. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 10,000/- transportation charges; Rs.1,00,000/- medical expenses; Rs.23,200/- for the expenses incurred while the claimant was in hospital; Rs.8,89,746/- for the loss of income during treatment; Rs.2,00,19,285/- for the disability/loss of future income; Rs.3,84,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses; and Rs.20,01,928.50 for the loss of future prospects, making the total compensation of Rs.2,35,78,159.50. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has instructions to seek reduction/cancellation of the compensation awarded in respect of the claim for disability/loss of future income, loss of income during treatment; and loss of future prospects. However, in view of the cross objections filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, we would also like to consider whether an enhancement of the amounts of compensation awarded under other heads is necessary. 11. Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao learned counsel for the appellant at the outset invited our attention to the order passed by this Court dated 27.8.2008 whereby the claimant was directed to place on record his income tax returns filed before and after the accident. Relevant portion of the order dated 27.8.2008 reads thus: I.A.No.11/07 has been filed by the appellant with a prayer to direct respondent No.1 to file his Income Tax returns pertaining to the year 1999-2000 and the period subsequent to 2002-2003 filed by him before the Income Tax Authorities. On consideration of the said application, we deem if fit and proper to direct respondent No.1 to file his income tax returns. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that he will do so within one week after serving copy thereof on the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. On consideration of the said application, we deem if fit and proper to direct respondent No.1 to file his income tax returns. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that he will do so within one week after serving copy thereof on the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. The claimant accordingly filed affidavit dated 10.9.2008 and therewith income tax returns for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07, Thereafter, he also placed income tax returns for the assessment year 1999-2000 along with the memo dated 23.9.2008. Income of the claimant for these years, as disclosed to the income tax Department, is as under: It is on the basis of the figures of income of the claimant before and after the accident, learned counsel for the appellant -insurance company vehemently submitted that the claimant misled the Court claiming that his earning capacity was badly affected in view of the accident and that he lost future prospects. He submitted that a glance at the income tax returns clearly show that income of the claimant was not decreased, but, increased after the accident. He started earning more than double the income he had before the accident as an employee of Ericsson Communications India Pvt. Ltd. In fact, he submitted, before the accident he was getting only fixed salary and after the accident he started getting substantial income from other sources on the basis of his qualification. In view thereof, he submitted, under any circumstance, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss of future income, loss of earning during treatment and future prospects deserve to be set aside/reduced. Insofar as the amount of compensation awarded towards the loss of earning during treatment is concerned, he submitted, the claimant was getting fixed salary from his employer during that period. In support, he invited our attention to the income tax returns filed by the claimant for the relevant year i.e. 2000-2001. During this period the claimant had shown Rs.13 lakhs income from salary. He then submitted, there is nothing on record to indicate that he lost income during the period of treatment, which, according to the claimant, was about six months. In short he submitted the income tax returns filed for the year of accident clearly show that the income of the claimant had increased and, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under this head deserves to be set aside. 13. In short he submitted the income tax returns filed for the year of accident clearly show that the income of the claimant had increased and, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under this head deserves to be set aside. 13. The claimant at the relevant time was 35 years old and was Senior Specialist Software Engineer working with Ericsson Communications India Pvt. Ltd. It appears that even after the accident, he continued to work with M/s. Ericsson Communications India Pvt. Ltd. and then with M/s. Wipro Technologies Ltd., Bangalore as stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. He further stated, at the time of evidence i.e., February, 2004 he was working with Wipro Technologies Ltd. He then stated that he was not able to work full time and that affected severely his professional life. He further stated, after the accident he became crippled and has been moving only on wheel chair and needs assistance for his all daily living activities. He is not in a position to work for stipulated working hours and therefore, he has been working only half-a-day and that too erratically. He has also stated in detail about his educational qualification, expertise acquired by him and how meritorious student/employee he was/is all throughout. He has also produced on record medical evidence in support of his claim. He examined Dr. N.D. Shama Rao (P.W.2), Senior Specialist, General Hospital, Kadur and Dr. Rajalakshmi (P.W.3) to prove disabilities suffered by him. Dr. Shama Rao was on duty when the claimant was first taken to the hospital. On examination, he found tenderness and swelling in T-11 vertebra and that the claimant become paraplegic. MRI report revealed fracture dislocation of T-12 L-1 with extensive laceration of spinal cord. All the injuries sustained by the claimant according to Dr. Shama Rao were grievous in nature. Thereafter, he was examined by Dr. Rajalakshmi (P.W. 3) working in Bangalore Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department of St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. On examination she noticed the following injuries: (a) Vitals stable (BP 130/70), well oriented, alert and responsive, cooperative. (b) Healed surgical scar thoraco-lumbar region. (c) Neurological exam showed normal higher mental functions, normal speech, and no cranial nerve involvement. Sensory: Right T 10, Left T 11. Motor: Abdominals contracting. 0 power all LL muscles. UL normal. Reflexes: Anal wink present. DTRs absent LL, normal UL. (b) Healed surgical scar thoraco-lumbar region. (c) Neurological exam showed normal higher mental functions, normal speech, and no cranial nerve involvement. Sensory: Right T 10, Left T 11. Motor: Abdominals contracting. 0 power all LL muscles. UL normal. Reflexes: Anal wink present. DTRs absent LL, normal UL. (b) Bladder management by CIC (attender), 3rd hourly. Reflex bowel, with absent anal sensation. (c) Dependent in all activities of daily living, She further found that there was no functional recovery in the muscle power of the lower limbs. In respect of functional status of the petitioner, she stated thus: Mobility: Wheelchair dependent. No functional walking. Bladder: CIC 3 hrly. with help. Wears a diaper at work since CIC not possible at workplace. Leaks present. Bowel: Evacuation by introducing finger by wife. ADL: Independent in grooming, upper body dressing. Dependent in outdoor mobility, bladder and bowel care. Vocation: Working for half a day, work confined to desk-job. Psychological Status: Anxious, but motivated. Disability assessment: 90%, permanent. (emphasis supplied) In support, she produced case papers and discharge summery (Ex. P-19 & Ex. P-20). Nothing worth considering was elicited so as to discard the evidence of these two witnesses in their cross-examination. Even before us, the injuries/disabilities suffered were not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. It is against this backdrop, we would like to consider whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was correct and/or not excessive. We would also like to look into few Judgments of the Supreme Court laying down a law to be kept in view while dealing with such cases. 14. The Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi V. M/S. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Others AIR 1995 SC 755 had an occasion to deal with similar facts as arise in the present appeal. In that case R.D. Hattangadi who was practicing advocate had met with an accident and became paraplegic. While dealing with that case the Supreme Court in paragraphs 9 & 17 observed thus: 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. 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. 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. 17. The claim under Sl. No.16 for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life under Sl. No.17, are claims for non-pecuniary loss. The appellant has claimed lump-sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each under the two heads. The High Court has allowed Rs. 1,00,000/- against the claims of Rs.6,00,000/-. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. According to us, as the appellant was an advocate having good practice in different courts and as because of the accident he has been crippled and can move only on wheel chair, the High Court should have allowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of claim for pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of loss of amenities of life. We direct payment of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- under the heads 'Pain and Suffering' and 'Loss of amenities of life'. (emphasis supplied) In The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. We direct payment of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- under the heads 'Pain and Suffering' and 'Loss of amenities of life'. (emphasis supplied) In The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, AIR 2003 SC 4172 , the Supreme Court in paragraph 18 observed thus: A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities of life the features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life has to be reckoned. (emphasis supplied) In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2010 (12) SCALE 265 the Supreme Court in paragraphs 13 & 15 observed thus: 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may. Be that as it may. (emphasis supplied) In NAGAPPA v. GURUDAYAL SINGH (2003)2 SCC 274 the Supreme Court held that compensation to a victim of a motor vehicle accident or in case of a fatal accident to the legal representatives is awarded under two heads, namely special damages - which are suffered by the victim or the legal representatives and general damages, which include compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, earning capacity and prospective expenses including expenses for medical treatment. The first part of the damages can be easily proved on the basis of the evidence in possession of the claimant. However, with regard to the second part it would be a matter of conjectures depending on the number of imponderables. While calculating such damages, the Tribunal/court is required to have some guess work taking into account the inflation factor. This Court in BASAVARAJ v. SHEKAR reported in ILR 1987 Kar. 1399 in paragraphs 9 & 10 observed thus: 9. The two main elements in personal injury actions are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. In Fair -vs- London and North Western Railway Co. Chief Justice Cockburn distinguished the two aspects thus: In assessing the compensation the jury should take into account two things, first, the pecuniary loss (the plaintiff) sustains by accident: secondly, the injury he sustains in his person, or his physical capacity of enjoying life. When they come to the consideration of the pecuniary loss they have to take into account not only his present loss, but his incapacity to earn a future improved income. Referring to the heads of damages in personal injury actions McGregor on Damages (14th Edition) para 11 provides: The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz. the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the Courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life. 10. 10. It is Trite law that in granting compensation for personal injuries the victim has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. 15. In granting compensation for personal injuries the victim has to be compensated for "loss of amenities"; "loss of expectation of life"; "pain and suffering"; etc. The compensation under these heads is incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Damages for mental or physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, such as on account of injury/disability the claimant may not be able to walk; damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life; are non-pecuniary damages. In such cases, the victim not only suffers injuries on account of the accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident throughout his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. The non-pecuniary loss may make the claimant totally or partially incapable of earning any kind of livelihood. But in a given case, such as the present one, inspite of permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on and earn his livelihood. Therefore, it is necessary to examine while fixing the damages to compensate for the loss of amenities; loss of expectation of life; pain and suffering, whether the claimant suffered 100% earning disability, and, if yes, there is a need to award compensation separately under the heads of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life or pain and suffering to avoid duplication in award of compensation. 16. In the present case, the claimant though suffered almost 90% physical disability being rendered paraplegic, he did not suffer earning disability at all. As a matter of fact, his income increased and not decreased. This fact has not been disputed by the claimant. 16. In the present case, the claimant though suffered almost 90% physical disability being rendered paraplegic, he did not suffer earning disability at all. As a matter of fact, his income increased and not decreased. This fact has not been disputed by the claimant. In view thereof, undoubtedly he is entitled to claim damages separately under the heads "loss of amenities" and "loss of expectation of life". We have made reference to the physical shock, pain, suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future by the claimant. The claimant who was absolutely hale and hearty person has now been crippled and can move only on wheel chair. He claimed lump sum amount of Rs.9 crores under all heads. Learned senior counsel for the claimant before us however submitted that at least half the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads disability/loss of future income be awarded for the loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. As against this, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant would not be entitled for anything more than Rs.3,00,000/- for the loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant and the disability suffered, undoubtedly there is a loss of expectation of life and loss of amenities of life. The claimant will not be able to walk all throughout his life and would require assistance for all daily living activities or will have to be dependant. 17. When damages to compensate for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life, are to be awarded the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life and so also marital status. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. 18. In the present case, we have already made reference to the special circumstances which make this case one of the exceptional cases where the claimant is entitled for damages to compensate for 'loss of amenities of life' and the 'loss of expectation of life'. 18. In the present case, we have already made reference to the special circumstances which make this case one of the exceptional cases where the claimant is entitled for damages to compensate for 'loss of amenities of life' and the 'loss of expectation of life'. The claimant is a computer engineer who did his B.E. (computer science) and had worked as Lecturer in Computer Science Department, Malnad College of Engineering, Hassan, then joined Texas Instruments India Ltd, Bangalore. He claims that he won number of awards at international level. At the relevant time he was working at Ericsson Communications India Pvt. Ltd. and was drawing salary of Rs. 1,47,000/- p.m. The claimant was a member of Advance Support System for Emulation test. The accident however has crippled him and confined to wheelchair. He cannot walk, run and make any movement of his own. Similarly, because of the accident there is a definite loss of expectation of life. It is not disputed that his life is shortened due to the injuries/disabilities suffered in the accident. It is also not disputed that he lost matrimonial life at the age of 35. Keeping that in view and considering the inflation factor, in our opinion, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- in respect of the claim for 'loss of amenities' and Rs.3,00,000/- for the 'loss of expectation of life'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for Rs.10,50,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities of life' and 'loss of expectation of life'. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company, after inviting our attention to the relevant discussion in the Judgment in respect of the total compensation awarded under different heads, submitted that the claimant under any circumstances, having regard to the increase in his income after the accident, is not entitled for any compensation in respect of the claim for "loss of future income" and "loss of future prospects". He submitted that the Tribunal has not examined the case in proper perspective and has wrongly awarded Rs.2,00,19,285/- and odd towards disability/loss of future income and Rs.20,01,928/- for the loss future prospectus. 20. The claimant in his evidence/deposition has stated how meritorious he was and after the accident because of the bladder and bowel problem, how he faces embarrassment and humiliation and how that ultimately forced him to resign though till he deposed in the case, continued to work. 20. The claimant in his evidence/deposition has stated how meritorious he was and after the accident because of the bladder and bowel problem, how he faces embarrassment and humiliation and how that ultimately forced him to resign though till he deposed in the case, continued to work. He has further stated that a person working in the software industry being a fast growing industry must be fit enough to face all situations which he cannot, in view of the disabilities suffered by him in the accident. He is not in a position to work for stipulated working hours and therefore, he has prayed for compensation for the loss of future income. His evidence, further show that the disability suffered by him cannot be cured and he will have to live with it for his life. He further states that because of the disability, he did not make any progress in the company where he was working. We have perused the evidence of the doctors, which corroborates/supports the claimant in all respect, insofar as physical disability is concerned. The Tribunal after having considered the evidence of the claimant and the doctors and so also the medical papers produced on record, awarded Rs.2,00,19,285/- in respect of the claim for disability/loss of future income. 21. The percentage of disability suffered by the claimant is not in dispute. However, from the evidence/material on record, it is clear that it was physical disability and not earning/functional disability. As observed earlier, the income of the claimant, in fact, increased after the accident. This in all fairness, has been accepted by learned senior counsel for the claimant. He submitted that the income tax returns filed on record clearly show that his income increased after the accident. In other words, he conceded that there is no loss of future income. However, he submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head may be treated In respect of claim for loss of amenities and he may be granted at least half of the said amount for the same. While examining the effect of the injuries/disabilities suffered, we have ascertained what activities the claimant could carry on and whether he is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, to earn or continue to earn. 22. While examining the effect of the injuries/disabilities suffered, we have ascertained what activities the claimant could carry on and whether he is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, to earn or continue to earn. 22. In the present case, from the income of the claimant after the accident, it is clear that the accident did not make any effect on his capacity to earn his livelihood. Keeping that in view and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the claimant, we have no hesitation in setting aside part of the impugned order by which an amount of compensation awarded in respect of claim for disability/loss of future income. 23. Insofar as claim for future prospects is concerned, undoubtedly having regard to the talent of the claimant and so also his expertise and the qualification, he definitely would have achieved and earned much more than what he had achieved and has been earning now, if he was a normal human being. The disability suffered by the claimant has undoubtedly given him a set back insofar as future prospects are concerned. We are therefore, inclined to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of future prospects. 24. Next we would like to consider loss of earning during the treatment period. The Tribunal has granted Rs.8,89,746/- taking Rs.1,48,291/- as monthly salary of the claimant. The claimant was taking treatment for about six months. The accident, in the present case, occurred on 29.1.2000, i.e. during the assessment year 2000-01. The income tax returns filed on record for 2000-01 clearly show that the income of the claimant from salary was Rs. 13,04,953/- and he had paid tax of Rs.4,06,459/-. He also had income from other sources Rs.31,717/-. It is on the basis of the figures disclosed in the income tax returns filed by the claimant for the assessment year 2001-01, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the claimant is not entitled for any amount of compensation under this head. He submitted, the income tax returns clearly show that he received salary during this period also. He further submitted, even the group Insurance Scheme also covered the loss placed on record the income tax returns for the assessment year 1999-00 which show that he had received Rs. 5,06,574/- only from salary. He submitted, the income tax returns clearly show that he received salary during this period also. He further submitted, even the group Insurance Scheme also covered the loss placed on record the income tax returns for the assessment year 1999-00 which show that he had received Rs. 5,06,574/- only from salary. Keeping all that in view when we made a specific query to learned counsel appearing for the claimant as to whether the claimant had received such amounts from salary, he had no option but to reply in the affirmative. He fairly stated that in view of the returns filed on record, he cannot dispute the receipt of salary during the treatment period. In the circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the claim for loss of income during treatment’ deserves to be set aside. Order accordingly. 25. Next, we would like to consider whether the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads deserve enhancement, as contended by learned Senior Counsel for the claimants. Firstly, we would like to consider whether an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the claim for "pain and suffering" is inadequate. In the foregoing paragraphs, we have made detailed reference to the evidence of doctors and so also to the injuries/disabilities suffered by the claimant. We have also made reference to functional status of the claimant. Keeping that in view, it is clear that inspite the treatment received by the claimant in various hospitals under the guidance of experts, he is confined to a wheel chair and needs to be dependent upon others for every activity including evacuation of bowels by introducing a finger by third person. The claimant in his affidavit of evidence stated that Dr. Srinivasan and Dr. Mahendra had told him, the spinal injury sustained by him would not allow him to get back to normal. He was told that bladder and bowel control and sexuality would not come back unless motor power in his legs is restored and that there is no chance of restoration of motor power in the legs. In short, from the material on record it is clear that the claimant would never recover and would have to suffer for his life, the way he is suffering now. At the time of accident, he was hardly 35 years old. The disability assessed by the doctor is 90%. In short, from the material on record it is clear that the claimant would never recover and would have to suffer for his life, the way he is suffering now. At the time of accident, he was hardly 35 years old. The disability assessed by the doctor is 90%. It is not disputed that the claimant suffered and will continue to suffer pain and agony throughout his life. It is against this backdrop, in our opinion, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the claim for ' pain and suffering' is inadequate and, in our opinion, the claimant is entitled for an amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under this head. 26. That takes us to consider the amounts of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the claim for "medical expenses", "expenses incurred while inpatient"; and "future medical expenses". The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.23,200/- against the expenses incurred while in the hospital and Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. 27. The claimant in the petition has stated regarding the medical expenses incurred by him and monthly expenses which he would have to incur towards salary of attendant, diapers, catheter, etc. The following are the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner: 28. Before we record our finding on the issue, it would be relevant to make reference to the affidavit of evidence filed by the claimant. From the contents thereof, it is clear that the claimant's employer had taken a Group Accident Insurance Policy with United India Insurance Company covering its employees including the claimant. In order to claim the amount of compensation under the said policy, the claimant had submitted all original bills of the expenditure incurred by him for his treatment. It would be relevant to re-produce the relevant paragraph from his affidavit to know how much amount the claimant received from the Insurance Company towards the expenditure incurred by him for the treatment and what were the considerations for granting the said amount. The relevant paragraphs read thus: When I was employed with Ericsson communications Ltd., Ericsson had a Group Accident Insurance Policy with United India Insurance Company. Under this policy of Ericsson, I submitted my claims to United India thru Ericsson along with all the original bills of the expenses that I incurred for hospitalization. The relevant paragraphs read thus: When I was employed with Ericsson communications Ltd., Ericsson had a Group Accident Insurance Policy with United India Insurance Company. Under this policy of Ericsson, I submitted my claims to United India thru Ericsson along with all the original bills of the expenses that I incurred for hospitalization. The insurance company initially awarded me for around 2.47 lakhs rupees assuming that my case was a temporary total disability. But later I brought to the insurance company's notice that it is a total permanent disability. The United India Insurance Company then wrote a letter on 2nd May 2001 to my employer at that time, M/s.Ericsson Communication (Copy of the same attached) and asked me to produce more medical certificates to prove that my case is a Permanent Total Disability. When I submitted all the medical certificates, the United India Insurance Company wanted to verify claims. The United India Insurance Company appointed a doctor, Dr. Harshad M. Shah, (please refer to the letter from United India Insurance company dated 31 July 2001, attached for perusal) to look at my case who checked my physical conditions and sent a report on my physical condition to the United Insurance Company. On 19th Feb 2002, the Insurance Company informed my employer, Ericsson that I will be paid an additional amount of Rs.18,92,798 in addition to the temporary total disablement of Rs.2,47,321. (A copy of the letter submitted for perusal which indicate the claim No.040800/42/3/7/011/01, policy no. 040800/42/11/749/11). Please note that this claim was settled against Group Insurance Policy that Ericsson had with the same insurance company, United India Insurance. It is surprising to see that the United India Insurance Company, is again stating that it is temporary disability. 29. In the cross-examination, the claimant admitted that he did not produce any documents before the Tribunal regarding the claim made by him under the Group Insurance Scheme. 30.Though it is not clear as to under which heads the amount was granted to the claimant under the Group Insurance Scheme, it appears that it definitely covers the entire amount which the claimant required to incur for his treatment from the date of his accident till he was recovered. Perhaps that appears to be the reason why the claimant did not produce before the Tribunal original documents in support of his claim for medical expenses and expenses incurred while in hospital. Perhaps that appears to be the reason why the claimant did not produce before the Tribunal original documents in support of his claim for medical expenses and expenses incurred while in hospital. The claimant, however, chose not to place details of the claim made by him under the Group Insurance Scheme. Even the appellant also did not make any attempt to elicit further information in respect thereof in the cross-examination. 31. It appears from the observations made in the impugned judgment that though a photo copy of the bill issued by Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, dated 20.3.2000 was placed on record, the claimant did not get it marked in evidence. The Tribunal has observed that no materials in support of the claim for medical expenses and the expenses incurred while in the hospital were placed on record. The Tribunal, however having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the operation undergone by the claimant and treatment taken by him, awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.23,200/- towards expenses incurred while the claimant was in the hospital. The claimant was in the hospital for 116 days. It is thus clear that the claimant was not serious in pursuing his claim before the Tribunal towards medical expenses and the expenses incurred while in the hospitals in view of the amount received by him under the Group Insurance Scheme. Keeping that in view, we are not inclined to grant any compensation whatsoever in respect of the claim for medical expenses and the expenditure incurred while in the hospital. The amount of compensation awarded under these heads is set aside. 32. The Tribunal, in our opinion, however, made an error in awarding Rs.50,000/- only under the head future medical expenses. It has come on record that he will have to take treatment throughout his life. It has further come on record that in view of the injury to spinal cord, in future there is a likelihood of cropping up of several other problems such as urinary tract infection, pressure sores, spasticity, spasms, hetertopic ossification, kidney and bladder stones, kidney problems and dysreflexia. Similarly, he will have to incur recurring expenditure for replacement of wheel chair, salary of the attendant, diapers, catheter/gel/medicines, massage, etc. 33. The claimant in the petition had prayed for Rs.80,000/- for wheel chair and other accessories; Rs. 10,000/- per month towards salary of attendant; Rs.8,000/- for diapers; Rs. Similarly, he will have to incur recurring expenditure for replacement of wheel chair, salary of the attendant, diapers, catheter/gel/medicines, massage, etc. 33. The claimant in the petition had prayed for Rs.80,000/- for wheel chair and other accessories; Rs. 10,000/- per month towards salary of attendant; Rs.8,000/- for diapers; Rs. 10,000/- per month for catheter/gel/medicines and Rs.2,000/- per month towards physiotherapy. As against the prayer for the aforesaid amounts, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- against the claim for future medical expenses and Rs.3,84,000/-for the attendant charges. There is no dispute that the claimant would require an attendant throughout his life. The Tribunal under this head has awarded the said amount taking Rs.2,000/- per month as attendant charges and 57 years life expectancy and, thus, granted the said amount for the period of 16 years having regard to his age at the relevant time. In our opinion, the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month for the attendant is too meager. The attendant perhaps would have to assist the claimant for changing his diapers and for evacuation of bowel introducing a finger. Having regard to the nature of duties, no person would ever agree to render such assistance and to be an attendant of such patient for Rs.2,000/- per month. The amount of Rs.2,000/- was not good even when it was awarded and it is undoubtedly not sufficient even today. In our opinion, taking the inflation factor into account, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.5,000/- per month for the attendant. Similarly, for diapers, considering that the claimant will have to use special diapers made for adults and use them round the clock, he would be entitled for Rs.2,000/- p.m. Even for catheter/gel/medicines the claimant would be entitled for Rs.3,000/- p.m. and Rs.1,500/- p.m. for physiotherapy and massage. Insofar as wheel chair and other accessories are concerned, taking into consideration that the same wheel chair will not last throughout the claimant's life, in our opinion, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.50,000/-. Thus, we grant Rs.9,60,000/- p.m. (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 16) in respect of the claim for the salary of attendant; Rs.3,84,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 16) for diapers; Rs.5,76,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 16) for catheter/gel/medicines and Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs. 1,500/- x 12 x 16) for physiotherapy, massage and exercise under the supervision of expert, Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.22,08,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- for wheel chair and other accessories. 34. 1,500/- x 12 x 16) for physiotherapy, massage and exercise under the supervision of expert, Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.22,08,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- for wheel chair and other accessories. 34. We accordingly award Rs.37,68,000/- compensation to the claimant. The break up of the compensation awarded by us under different heads is as follows: 35. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. We direct the appellant and respondent no.4 to pay jointly and severally the compensation of Rs.37,68,000/- together with costs and at 6% interest per annum on Rs.13,60,000/-, i.e. minus the amounts awarded in respect of the claims for future medical expenses, future prospects and expenditure to be incurred towards wheel chair and other accessories (see R.D. HATTANGADI supra), from the date of petition till the date of actual payment. Order of dismissing the petition passed by the Tribunal against respondent no.2 is confirmed. The appellant being an insurer is directed to pay the entire compensation awarded by this order within a period of four months from today. 36. Thus, the appeal and the cross-objections are partly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is modified in terms of this Judgment, No costs. 37. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.1 invites our attention to the operative portion of the order and submits that through inadvertence a direction was issued to the appellant and respondent no.4 instead of respondent no.3, to pay jointly and severally the amount of compensation. 38. have perused the original memorandum of appeal and so also the title of judgment which show that there are only three respondents in the appeal. Respondent no.3, who is owner of the vehicle, was respondent no.4 before the tribunal. Under the circumstances, the operative portion of the judgment is directed to be corrected to read respondent no.3 in the place of respondent no.4. After carrying out the correction, the office to issue fresh copy/certified copy of the judgment to the parties.