JUDGMENT : J. C. Doshi, J. 1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 01.07.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1949 of 2001. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 On 23.04.2001, the claimant was travelling in Luxury Bus No.GJ-17-W-1786 and when the bus reached near the place of accident, at that time, opponent no.1 came driving truck No.HR- 38-A-5336 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with luxury bus. As a result, the claimant received serious injuries. 2.2 FIR of incident was registered before Kalol Police Station being C.R.No.91 of 2001. 2.3. The claimant filed claim petition under section 166 of MV Act being MACP No.1949 of 2001 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% jointly and severally from driver, owner and insurer of Bus No.GJ-17-W-1786 and Truck No.HR-38-A-5336. 2.4. After appreciating evidence on record, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass judgment and award in tune of Rs.8,19,740/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition. 2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award dated 01.07.2008, the original claimant has filed present appeal. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Kapadia for the appellant / claimant would submit that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in grating compensation on lower side. It is submitted that claimant pursuant to injury received from road accident became total paraplegic, yet learned Tribunal has taken functional disability upto 80%. It is submitted that since claimant has suffered paraplegic, he totally become dysfunctional but learned Tribunal did not attribute 100% functional disability and did not compute compensation accordingly. She would submit that learned Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for loss of future prospects. It is also submitted that compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering should be granted on higher side. It is submitted that though claimant has produced medical bills at Exh.51 and Exh.52 to claim compensation, learned Tribunal did not consider future medical expenses and even did not grant attendant charge etc. Therefore, it is submitted that since on all count impugned award is on lower side, this Court by allowing this appeal should grant just and fair compensation to the claimant. 4. Therefore, it is submitted that since on all count impugned award is on lower side, this Court by allowing this appeal should grant just and fair compensation to the claimant. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Parikh submitted that multiplier of 15 would applied and learned Tribunal has taken multiplier of 16 instead. Looking to the facts of the case, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has not committed any error in granting compensation which is just and proper. Therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates for the parties extensively and also perused Record and proceedings of the case. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of K.S.Muralidhar Versus R.Subbulakshmi And Another [2024-JX(SC)-0-950] in para 2 and 3 has held as under :- "2. The concept of just compensation rests on the principle of restitutio ad integrum which means restoration to the original condition, as far as possible, taking the person to whom damages are awarded, to a position as if the incident or in this case, the accident, had never occurred. While this is a well-recognized and positive principle of law, we must also recognize its limitations. The award of compensation, however much it may be, does not give back to the person who affected their life but only alleviates the worry of being able to secure the required amenities. 3. In awarding non-pecuniary damages, this Court has often highlighted the difficulty in computation, for there is no manner in which such determination lends itself to formulaic ciphering. Every person in life has undertaken certain steps towards the realization of dreams, held goals and aspirations, and when they land up in such an unfortunate situation, where, for no fault of theirs, the trajectories of their lives are forever altered. Although, abstract in the written word, these factors form a large part of the 'pain and suffering' one undergoes apart from the manifested disability, which may be visible to another person." 6. In the case of N.K.V.Bros.Private Limited Versus M.Karumai Ammal [ 1980 (3) SCC 457 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 3 has observed as under :- "3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. In the case of N.K.V.Bros.Private Limited Versus M.Karumai Ammal [ 1980 (3) SCC 457 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 3 has observed as under :- "3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other case, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour". Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practised by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Art. 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for state relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Court should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard." 7. In Phillips v. Western Railway Co., 1874 4 QBD 406 Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus: "You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure" 8. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, 1965 1 All ER 563 laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: "Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or 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 may be 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." 9. In McGregor's Treatise on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: "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 nonpecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life." 10. In M/s Concord of India Insurance Co. In M/s Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi and others, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC) this Court 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." 11. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995) 1 SCC 551 dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held thus: "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 nonpecuniary 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." 12. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 343 this Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. "6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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." 13. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors., (2012) 12 SCC 274 this Court held as follows : "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 Licenced to : Adv.Urvashi Purohit . Page 8 of 13 law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance." 14. In the case of Kajal Versus Jagdish Chand [ 2020 (4) SCC 413 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 5 and 6 has held as under :- "5. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Act are well settled. 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 nonpecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. 6. Damages can be pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary, 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, 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." 15. Applying ratio to the facts of the present case, what could be noticed that claimant who was born on 30.06.1962 received injury from road accident and became paraplegic. Out of road accident, he received following injuries :- "Present status : At present he is complaining of inability to walk without support, inability to sit cross legged and sqratl, inability to drive vehicle, restricted of (L) knee movement, residual paraparesin. On examination - Tenderness present over body, standby over back, scar - 20 cm long over body, scar over (L) knee, 6 cm long, non tender well healed. Neurology - residual paraparais, lower heap and knee grade III. Ankle and foot grade. Movement - (L) knee movement 20% loss Deformity - bilateral equinous, deformity, present." 16. Above injury and disablement has been proved in deposition of Dr. D.H.Solanki at Exh.36. Injury received by the claimant has reduced lower part of body to deadwood. The claimant became paraplegic below waist. He was completely paralyzed. In view of settled principle of law, though Doctor has assessed physical disability to 80%, it should be considered as 100% functional disability. Learned Tribunal ought to have believed 100% functional disability. 17. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. Learned Tribunal ought to have believed 100% functional disability. 17. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. The compensation to be awarded under the principle of just and fair compensation to the injured of the road accident or the legal representative/s of the deceased person is based on the principle of fairness, reasonableness and equability. Anguish of the heart or for mental turbulence being consequential result of the road accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint essentiality lies in adopting holistic and pragmatic view to the computation of the compensation for the loss sustained, which is to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Although exact or perfect arithmetical calculation of compensation for reparation of the loss arrived from the road accident is almost impossible. The Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make an endevour to award just compensation regardless of the amount claimed by the claimant. The determination of the quantum of compensation therefore, must be liberal and not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scale. Needless to state that money may be awarded, so that something tangible may be procured to reach something else of the like nature, which has been destroyed or lost, but money cannot renew physical frame that has been battered and shattered being a result of the road accident. Yet Tribunal to endavour to bring back victim to stage of pre-road accident as far as possible Thus, the award must be reasonable and cannot be assessed with moderation though it cannot at the same time be pity and what could be granted must be just, fair and equitable compensation. 18. Learned Tribunal has taken income of the claimant as Rs.112/- paise per day from Exh.46 and applied 27 working days to calculate income of Rs.3024 per month and enhanced the same by 50% which reaches to Rs.4536/- per month and applied multiplier of 16 instead of 15. The claimant whose date of birth is 30.06.1962, would have been 39 years at the time of accident and therefore, considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], multiplier of 15 should apply. The claimant whose date of birth is 30.06.1962, would have been 39 years at the time of accident and therefore, considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], multiplier of 15 should apply. Learned Tribunal has granted Rs.35,000/- compensation for pain, shock and suffering which is too low compare to injury sustained by claimant. Paraplegic condition and deprivation of living of natural life could be consider as computation to assess compensation for pain, shock and suffering. Therefore, I assess Rs.2,00,000/- to grant compensation under pain, shock and suffering. The claimant has produced medical bills at Exh.51 and Exh.52 in tune of Rs.59,828/-, it could be presumed that claimant may not have all the bills and, looking to injury claimant has suffered in road accident, he must have incurred higher expenses which may continued in future. According to this Court, amount of compensation under medical expenses need to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Compensation under other head i.e. special diet, transportation is also required to be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. 18.1 Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Actual loss of income 18,144/- Future loss of income Rs.4536/- per month x 12 x 15 8,16,480/- Medical expenses 1,00,000/- Pain, shock and suffering 2,00,000/- Transportation expenses, attendant charges 25,000/- Total… 11,59,624/- Less : Amount which is already awarded 8,19,740/- Additional amount which is awarded 3,39,884/- 19. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled to get the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,39,884/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. 20. In the present case, luxury bus and truck are involved in road accident. Learned Tribunal assessed inter-se negligence of driver of luxury bus and truck in equal proportion and fasten 50% liability upon driver, owner and insurer of each vehicle. Since claimant was third party, it was case of composite negligence and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei v/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. [ 2015 (9) SCC 273 ], the claimant would be entitled to receive compensation from any of the tortfeasor. Since claimant was third party, it was case of composite negligence and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei v/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. [ 2015 (9) SCC 273 ], the claimant would be entitled to receive compensation from any of the tortfeasor. Learned Tribunal in operative portion, apportioned liability of opponent nos.1 to 3 to pay certain amount and opponent nos.4 to 5 to pay certain amount. Approach of learned Tribunal is egregiously erroneous and in teeth of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra). The claimant is third party. He can recover the amount of compensation from any of the tortfeasor. In the present case, two vehicles are involved but both are insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. Thus, in any case, National Insurance Company Ltd. would be liable to pay compensation for negligence of either of vehicles. 21. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 21.1 The present appeal is partly allowed. 21.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.3,39,884/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of claim petition till its realization before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 21.3 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. 21.4 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 21.5 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.