 It gives a sense of pride that once a resource person is being requested time and again to share his knowledge on the request of the participants and Justice Rama Krishnan is one of them, who is a former judge of the Kerala High Court and presently the judicial member of the National Green Tribunal. No, no, no, Parma, Parma Parma. So he says that his t-shirt would only speak of the greenness and his, the earlier precedence what he has laid down, we will follow. But be that as it may, today's session we will be doing on general principles of compensation in the motor accident cases. I was discussing before coming live to this session that today we will generally discussing the principles, the judgments of Sarla Varma, Pranayasethi, Rajkumar, these all judgments we will not be discussing, but the broader contours which have to be kept in mind as a lawyer or as a person who unfortunately has to deal with these aspects being a victim of the accident and we also know that a lot of judges also follow these sessions. So they can understand the broader concepts and thereafter they can dive deep after studying those judgments, but the principles largely would be discussed and as we all say that constitution is like a live in organ, it keeps on moving. Same is in the aspects of compensation motor accidents, we day in and day out find that what we were discussing today may not have seen the light in the judgments, but subsequently they become the judgments and sometimes what we feel today what has been laid down requires consideration and that's the beauty of law, that it keeps on changing with the dynamism and what their needs of the society. So today we will be hearing the principles and we are obliged that this is Ramakrishnan has accepted our invite and off late we have been bothering him, but his passion to pay back to the society. I believe is one of the factors which he agrees to our request for sharing knowledge. Thank you sir for sharing our knowledge on our platform, over to you. Thank you very much Mr. Rehregals and good evening to everyone. Though the subject that has been taken by me today appears to be very general, but I thought that it is necessary for both the lawyers who are dealing with motor accidents and also the judicial community which is dealing the issues, how to understand the principles based on, originally as you are aware that motor accidents was based on the principles of Toshia's liability. Based on the negligence of somebody else, the principle offender or Toshpeser, a vicarious liability will be there on the owner of the vehicle or the person who has committed was rightly responsible who engaged the person on account of whose negligence the incident happened. And courts were generally going by the common law principles of Toshia's liability for the purpose of fixing the liability and also payment of compensation. Similarly the victim of the accident or victim of the victim for the injury sustained on account of the wrong committed by the Toshpeser has to be compensated that is ultimate aim of the principle of payment of compensation in the case of victims of accidents. As far as the liability is concerned, earlier there was no concern of insurance it was not a compulsory one, subsequently the Toshia's liability has become a statutory liability of payment of compensation as part of Petal Accidents Act and thereafter by virtue of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act because we are now dealing with the accidents caused due to user of the vehicle in a public place. When an accident occurred on account of user of a vehicle in a public place, there is a statutory liability on the part of the person who has committed the wrong vicariously on the person who engaged him and ultimately as an indemnifier insurance insurer is also having a liability to indemnify the insured so that the victim of accident will be assured of getting the payment irrespective of the capacity of the owner to pay the amount. Earlier it was finding it difficult to recover the amount from the owner because when huge amounts were passed it is very difficult to recover from them. So on by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court, long earlier quoted we can say by Justice Krishnaya has said that it is high time to value the life of the person and the life of the person which has been lost in an accident has to be compensated adequately and a provision must be made for making the vehicle put on road must have some insurance etc. Ultimately when 1939 Act was passed there was a compulsory insurance provided to cover the third party risk and putting the vehicle on road without insurance is made an offense as well just like a person driving the vehicle without rivalations. So there is a statutory obligation on the part of the owner of the vehicle to ensure the vehicle if you want to put the vehicle on road whether it is a private vehicle or a public vehicle so that the any wrong committed or any injury caused to a third party on account of the user of the vehicle in a public place will not go without getting the awarded compensation that was the principle behind the indemnifier principle has been brought in statutorily so that lose their right to get compensation though the owners of the vehicles are not having a sufficient fund or property to meet the compensation awarded against them. Further the question of compensation is also very difficult to ascertain because it is very difficult to assess the actual compensation that is being caused on account of the injuries sustained by a person or loss sustained by a family in the case of a death. The earlier the compensation was fixed on a guesswork multiplier and multiplicable a multiplicant the principles were there but choosing the multiplicant and multiplier there were no standard provided at that time. Earlier the compensation was fixed on the basis of the lifespan of the person in the case of a death even in the case of a injury also the lifespan will be taken as a basic principle for fixing the compensation that at the remaining period of the life will be taken as the multiplier. Multiplicant will be the basic earning of a person which he is getting at the time of accident and which he has lost on account of the injury sustained or the death cost in the case of the persons who are responsible for the same. Ultimately the principle of compensation as you are aware was on the basis of fault theory because in order to get compensation you will have to prove first that there was negligence on the part of the person who committed the tort by virtue of which the person sustained injuries and the person also will have to prove the cause of cause of for the injury sustained and the disability sustained for the purpose of getting compensation. Further it was also a basic principle that it is not possible to compensate on all aspects. Compensation is an amount to recompose the loss sustained by the victim on account of the injury sustained due to the wrong committed by a third person wrong doer that is a tort user and that must be just and reasonable. If you go through section 168 of the motor vehicles act the word never said the word used is only just compensation not said that actual compensation that is sustained because it is very difficult to ascertain as well everywhere you will have to apply certain guesswork for the purpose of fixing the compensation. Slowly when the principle of contributing negligence was also applied for the purpose of ascertaining the person who is responsible for the accident ultimately it is found that the person who claimed the amount himself was totally responsible for the same. Ultimately the court will have no option but to dismiss the application thereby he will though he sustains some injuries and sustains at fault on account of whose fault the incident occurred. But subsequently due to the intervention of the Supreme Court Supreme Court has said in some of the cases in the words of Justice Keshaya that the value of the life of the person should not go uncompensated. You will have to find out some method by which certain amount will be provided for such persons irrespective of the negligence and the person who sustained injury with having suffered disability and also the persons who lost their breadwinner because of the death of a person has to be compensated because they will have to come out of the loss sustained by them or with some provision there is a social obligation to provide some compensation irrespective of the fault theory. No fault theory will have to be introduced. That was how the no fault theory was also taken into consideration and in 1939 in section 92A of the motor vehicle cycle was introduced whereby a minimum compensation was provided in the case of death and permanent disability and it was a provision provided even ultimately if it is found that the accident was due to the negligence of the person who claimed the compensation though he may not be entitled for the compensation of fault theory but the amount awarded under section 92A should be the minimum amount of compensation payable and that cannot be recovered from him. So thereby by applying the no fault theory the compensation a minimum compensation was provided irrespective of negligence. Subsequently when the 1939 act was replaced by 1988 act a provision was incorporated as section 140 to 144 chapter 10 thereby a minimum compensation was fixed for personal death and also for permanent disability caused on account of the injury in the case of an injury case. There also similar provision was provided that the compensation awarded under section the compensation awarded in section 140 should not be recovered from the person who is entitled to claim the amount as an injury amount. Ultimately if it is found under section 166 of the act that he may not be entitled for compensation due to negligence his own negligence. Subsequently in 2002 section 163A was incorporated with a schedule being attached to the motor vehicles act. Thereby a structured formula was created for the purpose of awarding compensation on the no fault theory. There the age of the person the monthly income but the maximum income was 40,000 rupees. A multiplier was also provided as how the compensation will not be calculated. One third of the amount will not be detected was personal expenses and the balance amount with the multiplier unbearing with the table provided. The compensation will be calculated but earlier there was a view that though 163A was there. There was a view by several high courts that it is only an in-rame award where ultimately if the it is found under section 166 is entitled for more amount over and above the amount awarded under section 163A the balance amount also can be claimed. And the limit of the amount of 40,000 need not be looked into for that purpose but ultimately later it was held because by virtue of section 163B if I remember correct that the person who is claiming compensation under section 163A is not entitled to claim compensation under section 166 because a person claiming a full-fledged method of compensation was provided in the case of death and also in the case of injury. Injury also provided as how the compensation will be dealt with. And the person who are not entitled for claiming compensation on both though they will have to confine either under the fault theory or under the no fault theory. And the Supreme Court also held the amount of 40,000 provided under the schedule is a maximum limit. You cannot claim more than that amount for the purpose of fixing the compensation under the no fault theory because some restrictions must be there for the purpose of claiming compensation by person on account of whose negligence the accident occurred against a person who was not responsible by accident. And if there is no difference between the fault theory and no fault theory no purpose will be served. So the Supreme Court has held that the compensation awarded under section 163A is a final award as far as no fault theory is concerned and the person who claimed compensation under section 163A is not entitled to claim compensation under the 166. Subsequently the now in 2019 section 144, 140 to 144 and also 163 is a original 163A were taken away. Now a 167 section was added or substituted we can say earlier provision thereby a fixed compensation of his零 tax was provided in the case of a fault theory no fault theory and personal compensation of 25,000 was also fixed because you are not entitled to get more than that amount and the schedule was also removed. So now as far as the fault theory is concerned the area is covered by section 167 of the motor vehicles act as amended in 2019. As regards the fault theory is concerned you are going by two types of cases because 166 says that who are entitled to file an application for compensation the person injured the owner of the property and the legal representative because under section 163A what was provided was a legal here is entitled to get the compensation. When originally the compensation aspects were considered only the dependence were considered because applying the principle under the fatal accident act only the dependence were considered as the person's entitled to compensation not all. A legal community people may be knowing the difference between legal here and illegal representative because legal representative include legal here also but legal here but the legal here is need not be a legal representative sometime maybe a legal representative but legal representative need not be a legal here because a person who is coming to the property by virtue of will he will be a he is a person entitled because there is no definition provided in respect of legal representative under the motor vehicles act. You will have to go by the general principles provided under the code of school procedure that was held by the supreme court also in one of the decisions that you will have to go by the wider concept of legal representative because a person may be a dependent may not be a dependent may be a legal here but without a legal here also a person may be depending on the deceased for his livelihood. For example brothers and sister unmarried brother and sister living along with the deceased they may be depending on the deceased for their livelihood till they get an employment or minor brothers and sisters. So those things are taken into consideration when section 166 was enacted by the legislature that it should not be restricted to the legal here alone but wider concept must be taken for the purpose of awarding compensation for those persons who are depending on the deceased as well for that purpose. So a wider concept was provided as to person who is entitled that was reason why the word legal representative was added instead of legal here or the word dependent though when you go to the application you can find that loss of dependency. So dependency means a person who is depending not the legal here who is entitled to get the amount. So that was how the principle of compensation persons entitled to compensation were evolved. Then comes the question how the compensation will out be calculated because the Supreme Court in several cases has said it should not be treated as a windfall and at the same time the person awarding compensation should not be stingy in awarding the compensation as well. He allowed to strike a balance between the two for the purpose of fixing the compensation. See that was reason why I said in the beginning itself the person who are dealing with as lawyers who are dealing with the compensation cases in motor vehicle like motor accidents and also the persons deciding the case also must have an understanding of the basic principle which allowed to be taken note of by them for the purpose of awarding compensation because it should not be windfall because you are dealing with the public money for the purpose of a reasonable cost a social welfare system. So the public money is being utilized for the purpose of providing compensation out of the premium amount collected by the insurance company and the amount is being set apart for the purpose of payment of compensation to the victims of the accident. But at the same time it should not be very stingy as well. So that was reason why section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act use the word just compensation. So you will have to strike a balance between the two. It should not be just like a lottery and it should not be very miserly way in which it will not be dealt with also. So that was reason why the lawyer who is dealing with and the judges who are dealing with must also understand and they must stand in the position of the victim and assess the compensation which will be reasonable and just to meet the situation. That is how the Supreme Court also in several decisions has said the yardstick you cannot fix. But you can evolve the yardstick for the purpose of assessing the compensation in a just way. That is how the principles will be considered. So earlier I have said because there are two types of cases. One is a personal injury resulting in disability or not disability and the other is a case of death. In the case of personal injury is concerned ultimately the compensation is of two types. One is general damages and special damages. General damages are the person the amount which can be ascertained by producing some evidence. Special damages are such you will have to do some guess work for the purpose of awarding under certain rates as the future inconvenience or disability that the person who is going to suffer on account of these aspects. There you will have to find out some method by which how to strike a balance. So in the case of a personal injury you will have to find out the nature of injury, the period of treatment undergone and the amount involved for the purpose of medical expenses. The loss of income is suffered during the period of treatment. The attendant expenses met by the injured while he was in the hospital and after hospitalization in the house also till he resumes his work and the transport expenses for the purpose of taking to the hospital and coming back and if he has to go several times the number of times he went for those purposes all those things will have to be considered if you go by the motor vehicle strike application for compensation under part one because they come under the general head of general damages. When it comes to the other part of the injury cases are concerned special damages in respect of pain and suffering suffered, loss of inconvenience, loss of disability permanent disability and the loss of earning capacity. These are all the heads under which you will have to consider the compensation in the case of a personal injury is concerned. As regards the death is concerned very easy because you know the income of the disease or you can assess the income of the disease. You know who are all the persons entitled for compensation and by virtue of the latest decision because I will come to the methods. The multiplier and multiplicant will not be applied and those are all the things to be considered as compensation for loss of dependency and as regards the general damages are concerned if it is an instantaneous death there will not be any expenses incurred for medical expenses or transport etc. The pain and suffering suffered by the disease, loss of consortium in the case of spouses, loss of love and affection in the case of children and loss cost to a state to some extent. These are all the heads under which generally compensation is fixed in the case of death and the question has to be whether future prospects will have to be taken or not where also considered is a pixel I will come later on those aspects. As regards the injury case is concerned if you do not have any permanent disability suffered on account injury sustained then you will have to confine only to the general damages mainly and to some extent some compensation under the special damages like pain and suffering, little disability or digital link and user has been caused because you will not be getting any compensation under the head permanent disability or loss of ending capacity occurred on account of that. So, while you consider all these aspects earlier in the case of a permanent disability is concerned the percentage of disability that has been suffered will be taken note of earlier by the tribunals and also the quotes for the purpose of assessing compensation under the case of a permanent disability loss of ending capacity etcetera. Pain and suffering as far as the pain and suffering is concerned it will depend on the nature of injury sustained, the period of treatment under gone and the time taken for curing the injury etcetera. But in the case of a permanent disability is concerned apart from the monetary aspects which can be calculated for that purpose you will have to consider the loss of amenities that has been suffered by the injured on account of the disability suffered because he was deprived of the benefits or enjoyments which normal people of his age will be enjoying if the disability would not happen. So, that must be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation under the head permanent disability. As far as the loss of ending capacity is also concerned instead of going by the disability certificate that has been provided you will have to correlate with that with the nature of employment that has been suffered or that is nature of employment that is being undertaken by the injured at the time when the accident occurred or if any suffered the disability. So, these are all the areas where we will have to consider these aspects I will go to the other aspect later death we will consider these aspects. See earlier here also you cannot give any yardstick as to how the pain and suffering can be assessed compensation can be assessed under the pain and suffering how you can assess the inconvenience cost etc. Some of the high courts have held once you take the permanent disability and some amount is awarded under the head permanent disability then the tribunal or the court is not expected to award compensation under the head loss of ending capacity again or once you awarded taken the person the disability as a factor affecting the ending capacity and some amount is awarded then need not be considered for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head loss of inconvenience because there is a possibility of overlapping of these aspects which has been considered in both the cases. But the Supreme Court as Vigas has said this is Rabindran has given a classic example of these aspects as to how these aspects will be taken into consideration. It has been beautifully explained in the decision because Vigas may be able to give the decision citation the merely because you are giving compensation under the head loss of ending capacity taking into account the disability suffered. It is not necessarily deny compensation under the head personal inconvenience cost on account of the injury sustained. The Supreme Court has said because there may be disability for you it may be permanent as well but it need not have any impact on your employment sometimes. For an example even a fracture occurred to a person he is working a clock fracture leg there may be a disability of some percentage because medical board gives some percentage of disability taking into several aspects. If you apply the principle laid down in the Supreme Court it may not affect your ending capacity because you are a permanent employee of employment your employment prospects have not been affected on account of the same because your maybe regular promotion maybe you are getting till retirement and the income also will be increasing depending upon the nature of employment is undertaken by the injured at that time but he will be entitled for compensation for the inconvenience caused by him on account of the same. So you will have to find out the nature of disability is suffered nature of disability is suffered by the injured and you must also understand how this has affected his day to day activities or what are all the nature of difficulties that you will have to undergo with that disability. For example suppose there is a shortening of leg cost or there is a cripplement of your hand that may not affect your employment as a clerk or an officer in a bank in an institution but in your day to day life using your hand you may be doing a lot of things use your leg you may be having a lot of things you may have difficulty in squatting you may have difficulty in sitting in a particular mode doing your day to day nature, nature is called etc all those disabilities will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing a compensation under that but some guesswork will have to be done for the purpose of the injury being caused for pain and suffering also the nature of injury sustained the period of treatment undergone by him and the number of surgeries undergone for the perhaps a correction etc and during that time what is the nature of pain you would have understood undergone all those will have to be taken into consideration by the tribunal and that amount will have to be quantified in a reasonable way to fix a compensation because we go by the decisions you can't say that one case it was awarded one lakh in some case it has been awarded five lakhs so you cannot find out method by which it has been done but a principle has been given as to what are all the things to be cumulatively taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the compensation so that is a way in which you will have to understand the amount of compensation that will have to be paid in the case of an injury where there is a permanent disability but it has not affected the ending capacity but in the case of an injury sustained by a person suffered a permanent disability having impact on his employment then that also will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the compensation because suppose today you are getting 5000 rupees on account of injury sustained you may not be able to do the same work in an efficient manner in the way in which you can do some other work you can get some income by doing some other work that may not be equivalent to the other thereby a percentage of loss of income is being caused on account of the same so that percentage of loss of income with a multiplier will have to be applied for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head and loss of ending capacity but earlier the tribunals were awarding the same thing for disability, permanent disability and personal inconvenience and also loss of ending capacity because they were overlapping the same principle is being applied that the Supreme Court has deprecated that practice stating that under both heads people are entitled for compensation but not on the same yardstick you will have to apply this different yardstick for example in a case where recently the Supreme Court has Supreme Court or the Kerala High Court I do not remember the case has held in a case where a permanent disability has caused 100% disability he is living as a living vegetable he cannot do any other work gangster, a bachelor without marriage prospects then the courts held that in such cases it will out be taken as a 100% disability the compensation will out be awarded as though he is dead for all purposes the loss of dependency how you will calculate in the same manner in which the same amount will out be calculated for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of ending capacity at the same time you will have to consider the loss of marriage prospects because he may not be able to marry even if somebody else comes it may be only on empathy or sympathy you can call it but he may not enjoy the normal marital life on account of the disability suffered and sometimes it may have caused some disfiguration as well and you will have to depend on somebody throughout his life and the medical expenses are also recurring in such cases apart from the general damages that has been provided for the actual amount of compensation actual amount incurred for medical expenses and attendance during the period of treatment certain more amount will out be provided under the head future medical expenses and future lieutenant expenses because somebody will out be engaged for the purpose of looking out of that person so that much leniency will out be provided when you are deciding with a case where a person suffered permanent disability equivalent to death but he is living as a living vegetable for the remaining period of his life so these are all the aspects which will out be considered in the case of a permanent injury with a disability this is how the compensation will out be calculated and assessed for reaching the justness of the compensation payable to a victim of accident as in the case of a death is concerned earlier the multiplier multiplicand method was there but it was in a crude form what happened was the life span of the person will be taken the remaining period of life span suppose at the time the age life span was taken as 70 years because of the medical achievements and improvements and life span of the people have increased so it was taken as 65 or 70 at the time of accident if you are 25 years the remaining period will be taken as the multiplier multiplicand as in the case of other cases where the assessed income by the tribunal or the court will be taken as the multiplicand it will be multiplied and one third of the amount will be deducted for the personal expenses of the person and certain deductions were made for uncertainty in life because death is uncertain you cannot say when it will come though it is an ascertained one certain one but you cannot say when your death will come so it may come today it may come tomorrow it may go beyond that also but there is a possibility of preponement of death it is not in your hands and that will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the compensation so some deduction will not be given for that purpose and the Supreme Court also held in Sosama's case that because you are getting an amount in advance in a lump sum for that also some consideration will not be provided some deduction will not be provided so after detecting all these aspects the amount of compensation is being fixed for the first time in Sosama's case the Supreme Court has held there is uncertainty unscientific method of fixing the multiplier method but multiplier method is one of the methods which is best method by which you can assess the compensation but in that case after taking into several aspects the multiplier was maximum multiplier was taken as 16 subsequently it was enhanced to 18 in some other case thereafter came Tarla Verma's case it is an eye-opener in fact all the aspects of the injury as well as death etc were considered in that case and in some cases after in fact the 163A and the schedule has also come Supreme Court has raised doubts regarding the some mistakes as they would have found out but in the later decision it was said it cannot be said to be a mistake but it is an intentional thing that has been done by the legislature in the case of a death you will have to apply certain principle and amount of compensation the amount provided in the table it falls under certain age category and in the case of an injury you will have to apply the multiplier that was how it was taken and ultimately the Supreme Court said whatever it be it must be taken as a guideline for the purpose of fixing the compensation assessing the compensation in Tarla Verma's case all these aspects were considered and also another thing is also there in the case of a death the original principle was that the dependent the dependency should not override the lifespan of the disease that means the lifespan of the suppose you are taking 70 years you are not expected to take that much and if the you will have to take the age of the dependence and the nature of dependency will have to be a criteria for the purpose of fixing the compensation in such cases what happens is in the case of a old persons the compensation amount may come down because the young person dies living the old people the lifespan of the old people will not override the lifespan of the disease because he may be living more than what the remaining period available for the old people so that was taken as a consideration for the purpose of taking the multiplier as in the case of a wife and children that is principle may not still may not affect much but it will affect much in the case of older people because the parents are the dependents and the person who died is a bachelor then when you compare the compensation payable then you will have to take the age of the dependents so the period will be less the multiplier will have to be dependent on that age but in Sarla Verma's case the Supreme Court has said because this is the way in which the Supreme Court held in several cases earlier before Sarla Verma was decided in Sarla Verma's case all these aspects were considered the question as to whether future prospects will not be given etc are also considered because there was a concept though future prospects will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing compensation how you can take that was not no guidelines were given at that time but every on principle it was accepted that the amount will not be taken and in the case of a permanent employment there is a possibility of promotion there is a possibility of hike in salary all those things will be there so all those will not be taken into consideration for that purpose but in the case of a person who is not having stable income or for example self-employed then the Supreme Court some cases said in such cases you cannot say that the profit can be taken though there is a possibility of revision in the wages etc that need not be considered but in Sarla Verma's case also the Supreme Court has held that only a person having permanent income will be entitled to get the benefit of future prospects and depending upon the age it was also provided because it starts from 50% 30% then 10% and the multiplier method also was provided the how the deduction will be made also provided in the same decision depending upon the number of persons in the family there in the case of a bachelor it must be 50% if it is a married person with the children with 2 or 3 members similarly it was provided up to 6 and 6 and above a particular deduction was provided if I remember correct is 1 by 8 the maximum amount that can be deducted is 1 by 8 for the personal expenses of the disease the remaining will be provided to the dependents and that will be taken as the loss of dependents and with that you will have to add the future prospects and then the multiplier method also provided depending on the age depending upon the age group how the multiplier, maximum multiplier was provided is 18 and the compensation will be awarded and in that decision it was held that some provision will not be made for the deduction of income tax certain percentage will not be deducted if it is crossing the taxable income limit because in the case of an employee you cannot know that what will be the taxable limit and that aspect will not be considered for the purpose of and that amount will not be deducted and then it will not be multiplied with the multiplicant multiplier and the loss of dependency will not be fixed the view was informed by the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari's case in 2013 where the Supreme Court has accepted the principle lay down in Sarla Verma's case on principle on all aspects and the question as to whether person who is not having permanent employment is entitled to get or not and that aspect was considered and that decision the Supreme Court has held even a person employed or self-employed or having not person the fixed income also will be entitled to get some percentage of user prospects and that was also on the basis of the this thing amounts are fixed the slab was provided in that decision there also it was held the income means less the tax payable and because of the decisions and these views are later and in these decisions it has been held that you need not go by the old principle of the age of the dependence will not be taken for the purpose of fixing the multiplier what is considered is only the age of the deceased because the legislature when thought of fixing the multiplier method had decided the given the date of the age of the deceased and no other criteria was considered by the legislature so that must be taken into consideration being a welfare legislation that must be taken into consideration for the purpose of the adopting the multiplier suitable multiplier for fixing the compensation as regards the consortium is concerned in the case of a death the wife will be lost in the company of an husband the husband will be losing the company of the wife because you are losing a life partner and you are losing the opportunity to interact each other with your problems that is a great disadvantage as far as the spouses are concerned person living after death of the life partner the positions will be much more difficult for them they will already depend on so many aspects so many persons for meeting their purposes they may not be able to express their views with others with they can freely exchange with the wife living spouse so these aspects will be considered for the purpose of fixing the compensation because originally the view was a nominal amount will be provided under that head but that concept has been changed depending upon the age depending upon the nature of what you call the companionship that you were having how the family relations were going when they were living together all those aspects will be considered for fixing the compensation in one of the cases Supreme Court has held that minimum of one lakh will be provided as under the head loss of consortium but subsequently I think there was some change but ultimately said that a reasonable amount will be considered for the purpose of fixing compensation under the head loss of consortium depending upon the factors I have mentioned now as far as the minor children are concerned the love and affection is also lost the upbringing of the children by the father the anticipation and the guidance that has been given by the father to the children for their coming up in their profession or in the career or during the educational process the method of discussion with them which give them a guideline as to how they will have to proceed with their future career that has been lost to them maybe now under the click you may get so many things but because of the technology you are getting those things is not a criteria for taking into consideration the actual loss sustained by the minor children on account of the death of their parents so that will be considered there also no yards can be possible because reasonable amount depending upon the age of the deceased depending upon the age of the minor children how far because girl will be getting much more better than male because they kill the marriage she will be depending on the parents and the marriage prospects will not be looked into by the father when there is no father or mother the possibility of getting a proper alliance may be possible may not be possible depends so all those things will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the compensation under that because it is very difficult to say that so much amount can be awarded similarly as far as the pain and suffering of the deceased is concerned the earlier there was a view that there is no question of any pain and suffering for the deceased is concerned he will have to be that no amount need be awarded but Kerala Aikot has held that the pain and suffering suffered by the deceased if you would have alive he will be entitled for that amount that amount will not be given as a loss of a state to the deceased dependence that may also depend upon as I said in the case of a personal injury how long the period undergone what is the nature of treatment undergone there was some question arose whether suppose a person in coma may not be knowing about the pain or when the surgery is conducted you have been given under the anesthesia is given pain may not be knowing about all those things are rejected by the courts and ultimately court said the suffering that has been suffered by the deceased during the period from the time at which he sustained injuries till it resulted in the death will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head pain and suffering and you are also entitled for compensation for the transport expenses the medical expenses incurred attorney expenses for the purpose of looking after the person till his death in the hospital during the period of hospitalization as in the case of injury because if he had arrived if he had claimed that amount he will be entitled for those amounts and that amount will have to be passed on to the legal case or the legal representatives for the purpose of meeting the just compensation payable in such cases so these are all the general thing that will have to be considered in the case of death of an evening member with permanent employment and self-employed person and in the case of an injury case he will have to go by the nature of injury and the permanent disability sustain and he will have to correlate those things but in a case where wife is a homemaker died he is neither self-employed nor a permanent employment how the compensation will have to be awarded earlier their view was she will be treated as a non-employed person and notional amount can be taken nominal amount can be taken as a notional income for the purpose of compensation under great lot of dependence but later Supreme Court has held that you are forgetting about the services rendered by a homemaker to the family she is satisfying so many things for the purpose of upbringing the children and also satisfying the needs of the husband doing the cooking work doing other aspects and understanding the needs of the people in the house without getting any input from them you are reading their mind and doing the work satisfying everyone from morning till night thereafter she will have to do the work of a wife to the husband also so all these things will not be considered and the monetary value of the services rendered by the wife or the homemaker will have to be calculated in terms of money and that will have to be taken as the loss sustained by the dependents who are depending on the services of the deceased that is the homemaker so good amount will have to be considered for that purpose though not as equal that of a person employed getting a permanent employment but at the same time if you are allowed to engage certain persons for doing those work you will have to pay certain amount for those purposes and that will have to be taken to consideration for this purpose in the case where business people dies business bee is in continued by the legal representatives or business being done on behalf of the legal representatives by somebody else there may not be sometimes there may not be any loss the income may increase also because of the input that has been given by the third party or the new innovative ideas that has been developed for the purpose of improving the business but Supreme Court has said in such cases even if you are getting income the income tax assessment that has been taken or tax paid for the purpose of tax payment or what will be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation maybe you will have to give some deduction or the amount that is being paid to get that income so there also the Supreme Court said that you will have to take a reasonable calculation for the purpose of assessing compensation in such cases because you cannot say that there will not be any loss of income at all because of income the attendance or the view or the prospects which you would have enjoyed by the deceased on account of his skill on a particular employment may not be possible by the persons who are succeeding in the business though they may be employing somebody else for that purpose so those assets will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing compensation in that case but in the case of its children below 15 years who are not capable of doing any work but in the case of children who are capable of doing work you can take the income of that person and assess the compensation but in the case of children of tender age it is very difficult to fix the compensation some decisions in one of the decisions Supreme Court has fixed a table as to how a minimum amount of compensation will not be provided on the table that has been given in that decision I think it is by Justice Kuryan Joseph when his lawsuit was a Supreme Court judge dealing with the motor accident even in the permanent disability case also in the case of the children of tender age certain minimum amount will not be provided considering the nature of disability suffered by the injured so these are all the wider aspects of assessing compensated principles which are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the compensation in accident cases the lawyers must also know the principles laid down by the decisions while preparing an application were compensated because as a lawyer appeared in appeared for insurance company and as a judge as a motor accident judge for some time and as an eco judge dealing in the appeals dealing with motor accidents what I find was that there was scientific calculation made by the lawyers while making the application for compensation huge amounts being asked for compensation when we ask them as to how you are able to convince the court how much amount you will be entitled for compensation they may not be able to answer so it is for you to understand the principles behind the fixing the compensation assessing the compensation maybe some guesswork will have to be done some percentage of hike must be provided for the purpose of filing the application but that does not mean that without any calculation you can make a huge amount as compensation giving a false hope to the client that they will be entitled for so much compensation once you convince the party that this is the method by which the decisions are being done and how much amount you will be entitled for we will try our luck but when you are applying for compensation there is a feeling amount the lawyers also if you ask for a minimum or actual amount which you are calculating on the basis of the principles court may think that it is maybe an exaggerated amount court may reduce the amount no because even the decisions have gone to the extent of saying even if you are asking for a lesser amount as compensation the court is expected to calculate the just compensation to award that compensation's could be payable from the award amount that has been awarded so court will be taking note of the reasonableness and justness of the compensation payable in the case of motor accidents and you are you must be in aid to the court to arrive at a just compensation for that you must also scientifically in equip in arriving at the compensation and fixing the compensation at the time when you are filing the application once you have this principle in your mind assess the compensation in the right sense I don't think that any court may take the risk of reducing the amount unless court is not satisfied with the materials provided by you on the question of income etc so these are all the aspects will not be taken note of by everyone I think I have covered generally the principle of assessing compensation in a motor accident thank you very much for patient hearing I am not given any opinion on these aspects these are all the experience that I have heard as a lawyer appearing in motor accidents a lawyer appearing for the insurance company a judge sitting in motor accidents cases and deciding cases appeal in the high court and depending on the various experiences and also the precedence that I have come across during my period how the compensation generally assessed and awarded and this must be helpful for you in helping your client to get just a reasonable compensation thank you very much for patient hearing thank you sir on the youtube I saw that some people have asked questions regarding the judgements etc especially what would be the limitation after the new amendment whether it will apply to the cases of FIR etc so we will not be touching since we have discussed only in respect of the general principles and thank you sir for sharing your insights it was a bird eye view but it carried everything it had a 3D view that one could understand and we are indebted for sharing your knowledge stay connected with us everyone on the beyond law series if you have not subscribed to the channel you can do that and also connect with us on our youtube channel as well as the whatsapp