JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of the judgement and award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kushinagar, [hereinafter referred to as the “learned tribunal”] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 265 of 2012 dated 29.10.2016 granting compensation to the injured-claimant by partly allowing his claim and holdings respondent-UPSRTC liable to pay the compensation. 2. Briefly the case of the claimant-appellant before the learned tribunal was that the appellant sustained injuries in an accident which occurred on 29.06.2012 and was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of UPSRTC bus bearing Registration No. UP 27/T0235. The learned tribunal partly allowed the claim of the claimant-appellant for compensation on account of disability suffered by him in the accident. 3. The compensation awarded by the learned tribunal in the impugned judgement dated 29.10.2016 under various heads is tabulated hereunder : Sr. No. Heads Awarded by tribunal 1. Monthly Income 35000/- 2. Annual Income 420,000/- 3. Treatment 12567/- 4. Transportation 10,000/- 5. Future medical expenses i.e. towards purchase of device 10,000/- 6. Pain and suffering loss of amenities 1,00,000/- 7. Special Diet and misc. expenditure 10,000/- 8. Attendant charges NILL 9. Multiplier NILL 10. Loss of Income (19 days admitted in hospital) 9,500/- 11. Total compensation 1,52,067/- 12. Interest 7% 4. The appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant who seeks enhancement of compensation. 5. Shri Ajay Shyam Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned tribunal erred while considering the extent of the disability on the appellant's life and awarding paltry and unjust compensation. He also claims entitlement to an attendant and seeks enhancement of the awarded compensation under various heads. 6. Shri Anirudh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the UPSRTC submits that the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is lawful and just and brooks no interference. 7. The undisputed facts borne out by the evidence and material in the record and the findings of the learned tribunal are these. The accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending UPSRTC bus. The appellant sustained serious injuries in the accident on 29.06.2012 which left him with an amputated left arm. On the date of the accident the age of the claimant-appellant was 43. 8. The disability certificate records the nature of the disability as "amputation of left arm below shoulder found". The appellant sustained serious injuries in the accident on 29.06.2012 which left him with an amputated left arm. On the date of the accident the age of the claimant-appellant was 43. 8. The disability certificate records the nature of the disability as "amputation of left arm below shoulder found". The disability of 70% of a permanent nature has been opined by the experts in the disability certificate. 9. The appellant is a teacher by profession. The learned tribunal in the impugned award has found that the loss of left arm does not reduce his earning capacity. On this footing the learned tribunal has held that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation on account of loss of earning. 10. The learned tribunal fell into error by neglecting to consider the impact of the disability on the appellant's life. His teaching activities may not be directly hampered by the aforesaid disability. The fact remains that for attending to daily chores of life and other day to day activities, the disability will greatly constrain him. Routine activities of life hitherto accomplished with ease and without thought are made burdensome by the disability. Further, a physical disability of this nature also inflicts a social disadvantage. Our society has not been fully sensitized to the plight of disabled people. Each day is a stubborn reminder of robbed personal choices and relegation to a life of lesser mortals. 11. At the cost of a slight departure but for the benefit of a holistic view, notice may be taken of the fact that the plight of physically handicapped persons across the world engaged the attention of the global community with the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asian and the Pacific Region, 1992. India was a signatory to the aforesaid Proclamation. 12. The concern of the global community was brought on the conscience of the nation with the promulgation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, [hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act, 1995]. (hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act, 1995). 13. The Disabilities Act of 1995 reflects the legislative recognition that people with physical disabilities face discrimination and suffer exclusion. (hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act, 1995). 13. The Disabilities Act of 1995 reflects the legislative recognition that people with physical disabilities face discrimination and suffer exclusion. The legislative purpose of the Disabilities Act of 1995 affirms the national resolve to purge the stigma attached to disability, and to ensure full participation in life of persons with disabilities. 14. The Disabilities Act, 1995 has been referenced only to underscore the conditions of disabled persons and highlight the consensus of international instruments, global juridical values as well as municipal laws to ameliorate their lot. 15. In these dear times, the award of just compensation by courts to persons with disabilities provides social security, serves a similar social purpose, and acts as a beneficent measure in a welfare State. The phrase "just compensation" in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, discloses the legislative intent of achieving a welfare measure through adjudication by courts in accordance with evolved judicial standards. 16. Body of precedents also relates compensation to constitutional law holdings. Physical disability also undermines the dignity of an individual. In Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and others, AIR 2020 SCC 4424, award of compensation was made with the iteration that human dignity is integral to right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 17. Given conducive social environment and support system people with disabilities can achieve soaring heights and make stellar contribution to the society. Human spirit has always triumphed over physical disabilities. 17.1. Helen Keller lost her sight but not her vision. Despite loss of limbs Douglas Bader took wing to ''Reach for the Sky, [See: “Reach for the Sky” by Douglas Bader]''. A motor neuron disease wasted Stephen Hawking's body but did not curb his quest to speak to the stars; and he pushed human knowledge to its frontiers. Major HPS Ahluwalia suffered a battle injury and was paralysed below the waist. The disability broke his stride but not his spirit. The injuries immobilized his limbs but could not inhibit his dreams. The war hero always set his sights ''Higher than Everest, [See: “Higher than Everest” by Major HPS Ahluwalia]''. 18. Legislature and courts alike have endeavoured to purge social prejudice by empowering persons with disabilities, and to create a social environment of acceptance of disabilities by mainstreaming the said class. The injuries immobilized his limbs but could not inhibit his dreams. The war hero always set his sights ''Higher than Everest, [See: “Higher than Everest” by Major HPS Ahluwalia]''. 18. Legislature and courts alike have endeavoured to purge social prejudice by empowering persons with disabilities, and to create a social environment of acceptance of disabilities by mainstreaming the said class. Payment of just compensation in line with good judicial authority and legal norms is a part of this exercise. 19. In the facts of this case, without an attendant normal life for the appellant will not be possible. The appellant would need an attendant to perform routine chores of life like travelling from one place to another (including his place of work), lifting of weights and so on. Assistance of an attendant will enable the injured to overcome the hardship, reduce the inconvenience, and mitigate the discomfort and mental distress in life caused by the disability. An attendant will surely pave the way for appellant's rehabilitation and integration into the social mainstream, and enable full participation of the latter in all aspects of life. In short to lead a dignified and fuller life. 20. The assessment of personal damages in personal injury cases is a vexed question of fact and law. The exercise of assessing damages and determining compensation invariably involves educated guesswork. However, the scope of errors in such an enquiry can be reduced by determining subjective issues on an objective basis. 21. Recognizing such difficulties, the Supreme Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, (2020) 4 SCC 413 , opined that as under : "12. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made." 22. The enquiry of the courts in such matters can readily profit from the wealth of judicial authorities. This will not only reduce the scope of errors but will also prevent inconsistencies in judicial pronouncements. 23. Lord Denning in Ward Vs. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made." 22. The enquiry of the courts in such matters can readily profit from the wealth of judicial authorities. This will not only reduce the scope of errors but will also prevent inconsistencies in judicial pronouncements. 23. Lord Denning in Ward Vs. James, 1965 (1) All ER 563 laid down the fundamental principles which should be observed in such cases : "First, assessibility : In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or the brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity : There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions are given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community, and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability : Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good." 24. McGregor's Treatise on Damages, 14th Edn. Para 1157, appositely describes relevant heads in personal injury actions : "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." 25. Attaching court value to life and limb in M/S Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Devi and others, 1980 ACJ 55 SC, it was held : "2. ... the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales." 26. The different heads under which compensation is liable to be awarded for personal injury were thus laid down in R. D. Hattangadi Vs. ... the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales." 26. The different heads under which compensation is liable to be awarded for personal injury were thus laid down in R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 : "9. Broadly speaking while fixing the 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 up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as 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 the 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 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." 27. Similarly, in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and others, 2011 (1) SCC 343 the relevant factors for assessing losses and fixing compensation in cases of personal injury were stated in the following terms : "6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life." 28. The Supreme Court in K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others, 2012 (12) SCC 274 , advocated the path of golden mean while granting "just compensation" by setting forth as under : "2. ... There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance." 29. By now the well settled principles and guidelines for determination of just compensation in personal injury cases were reiterated in Kajal (supra) : "5. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Act are well settled. The injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as: (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges, etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. Damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees and paise. 6. Damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees and paise. 6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, the compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages. 30. More recently in an injury case the Allahabad High Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar Yadav and another, First Appeal From Order No. 1285 of 2008 emphasized on foot of good authority that just compensation envisages that "compensation should fully and adequately restore claimant to the position prior the accident" by holding : "It observed that scheme of Act, 1988 shows that award must be "just", which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. A person is not only to be compensated for physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. It means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned." 31. "Restoring the claimant to the position prior to the accident" requires full and adequate rehabilitation which integrates the disabled persons into the social mainstream to the extent possible. "Restoring the claimant to the position prior to the accident" requires full and adequate rehabilitation which integrates the disabled persons into the social mainstream to the extent possible. This imperative of just compensation is consistent with the following preambled object of the Disabilities Act, 1995 : "Statement of Objects and Reasons "(vi) to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream." 32. The principles governing the line of judicial enquiry for determining the compensation to which the claimant is entitled for injuries as laid down in the preceding authorities provide a reliable guide for this case as well. Though it has to be added that the enquiry to award just compensation is a fact based enquiry. This presents a difficulty in fixing one figure or a single formula for all cases. The approach of the courts has to be nuanced and not pedantic. The quest of the courts to award just compensation should not stray from the path of golden mean. 33. While applying precedents in a fact based enquiry the courts have to consciously avoid a representative heuristic or bias. "Errors of representative bias, [See - Thinking fast and slow – by Daniel Kahneman, for a fuller treatment of representative heuristic or bias]" occur in judicial decision making when precedents are applied to a case upon a superficial consideration of deceptive factual similarities. The end result is a judgement that excludes relevant considerations which should actually influence its outcome. 34. The role of an attendant to mitigate hardships in cases of permanent disability arising from grave injuries has long been acknowledged by courts. Once the requirement of an attendant is upheld, provisions have to be made to effectuate the services of the former. Hence while awarding just compensation in such cases attendant charges are factored in and the multiplier system is applied. Further courts have to be alert to the given future rise in attendant charges, and cater for its future enhancement as well. The aforesaid heads are integral for determining just compensation in such cases. Figure of 10% towards future enhancement of attendant charges seems reasonable in this case. 35. The narrative has the advantage of good authority in point. In Kajal (supra) after the need of an attendant was found, attendant charges were assessed and multiplier method was adopted to award just compensation by holding : "22. Figure of 10% towards future enhancement of attendant charges seems reasonable in this case. 35. The narrative has the advantage of good authority in point. In Kajal (supra) after the need of an attendant was found, attendant charges were assessed and multiplier method was adopted to award just compensation by holding : "22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs.2500 per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs.13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1 . The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of "just compensation" within the meaning of the Act." 36. In wake of the preceding narrative and in light of the facts of this case the charges for the attendant are fixed at Rs.2200/- per month. An additional provision to the extent of 10% enhancement for attendant charges is being made since future rise in such expenses is given. 37. The monthly attendant charges after making the provision for future enhancement are fixed at Rs.2420/- per month. The age of the injured is 43 years. The applicable multiplier as per Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Company and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 read with Kajal (supra) is 14. 38. Apart from above, the impugned award makes inadequate provisions for various expenses like medical expenses, pain suffering. The awarded amounts are paltry when seen in light of injuries caused and the permanent disability sustained. The amounts cannot be justified from the evidence in the record. 7% interest will serve the ends of justice. 39. 38. Apart from above, the impugned award makes inadequate provisions for various expenses like medical expenses, pain suffering. The awarded amounts are paltry when seen in light of injuries caused and the permanent disability sustained. The amounts cannot be justified from the evidence in the record. 7% interest will serve the ends of justice. 39. In wake of the preceding discussion, the amount of compensation to which the claimant is entitled and is hereby awarded, is tabulated hereunder : Sr. No. Heads Entitled Amount (in Rupees) 1. Treatment 30,000/- 2. Transportation 35,000/- 3. Loss of earning for two months 50,000/- 4. Future Medical Expenses including purchases of devices 150,000/- 5. Pain and Suffering loss of amenities 150,000/- 6. Special Diet 30,000/- 7. Misc. Expenditure 50,000/- 8. Attendant Charges 2200/- per month 9. Future enhancement of attendant charges 10% 10. Total attendant charges (annual) 29,040/- 11. Multiplier 14 x 29,040 = 406,560/- 12. Total compensation 901,560/- 13. Interest 7% 40. The amount of compensation awarded to the deceased shall be deposited by the respondent-UPSRTC within three months before the learned tribunal. Thereafter the learned tribunal shall release the amount to the injured-claimant without delay. The amount already disbursed to the injured-claimant (if any) shall be duly adjusted. 41. The appeal is allowed to the extent above.