The court emphasized the challenge of quantifying non-pecuniary damages and the need to rely on conservative estimates to determine fair compensation in personal injury cases.

( 1 ) :appellant,arun Sondhi, 21, a B. A. Final year student- in St. Stephens Collage,delhi was seriously injured in road accident on 4/3/1983 when his cycle was hit by a DTC bus. His one leg was amputated and the other paralysed. He became paraplegic because of multiple injuries received by him and his permanent disability was assessed at 100%. He filed Claim suit No. 127/83 and claimed a compensation of ra. 35 lacs. Respondent contested this amongst others on the ground that no DTC bus was involved in the accident. Tribunal rejected respondent s stand on this and estimated his future earning at Rs. 2,000. 00 a month and applied a multiplier of 16 to it to assess the loss of his earning at rs. 3. 84 lacs. It also awarded Rs. 1. 00 lac for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, rs. 2. 25 lacs or so for medical treatment at Sweden and here, Rs. 10,000. 00 for conveyance and Rs. 4,375. 00 for special diet and awarded total compensation of Rs. 7. 20 lacs with 12% interest vide Award dated 1/9/1994. Both sides filed appeals against this Award which were disposed off by common judgment dated 20/12/1996 by first Appellate Court. Appellant s appeal was allowed and compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,68,781. 00 and that of respondent was dismissed, while doing so First Appellate court increased compensation to Rs. 2. 00 lacs for pain suffering and assistance and applied maximum multiplier of 18 to the multiplicand of Rs. 2,000. 00 to raise the loss of earning to Rs. 4,32,000. 00.

( 2 ) APPELLANT feels dis-satified and has filed this appeal for further enhancement. His counsel Mr. Dhanda submitted that appellant was the captain of his college boxing team and member of its Football XI and had bright future as he came from a well educated and well placed family. Therefore, his -future income could not be restricted to Rs. 2,000. 00 a month. He contended that being a bright Sportsman, he had a reasonable prospect of being suitably employed and the reasonable potential to go up the ladder in his career and to earn an average monthly income of Rs. 10,000. 00 a month. He also complained that FAC had awarded less for the pain and suffering undergone by him and the loss of amenities of life. He claimed that appellant had lost control even on his urine and stool and always needed assistance of an attendant and for his movement and living. Learned counsel for respondent mr. Aggarwal on the other hand, opposed any further enhancement in the compensation. He claimed that appellant was already getting compensation of Rs. 21. 00 lacs or more inclusive of interest and there was no further warrant for any enhancement in the compensation. He cited Supreme court Judgment in Grifan V. Sarbjeet. Singh and others (JT 2000 (8) SC 55 to show that compensation of only Rs. 2. 00 lacs was awarded for amputation of right leg in that case. He also distinguished the other judgment rendered by Apex court in R. D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s Pest Control (India) pvt. Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 on the ground that accident victim in that case was a lawyer carrying a lucrative practice.

( 3 ) IT goes without saying that Appellant had become crippled and permanently disabled for ever. His permanent disability was 100% and he was living his life, whatever its worth, in a wheel chair. It is also the admitted position that he had become paraplegic and had lost control even over his urine and stool. He required assistance of an attendant and medical treatment all the time which involved a recurring expenditure. His plight could not be described in words, nor could his pain and suffering, frustration and disappointments be gathered or gauged. An athlete of yester-year must be ruing his survival which had plunged him in a veritable hell. No money could obviously compensate him for all this and consequently no reasonable compensation could be determined for what he had and roust be going through. But ail the same the Courts had to undertake the exercise in the discha