The main legal point established in the judgment is the methodology for assessing damages for loss of future earnings, including the determination of a multiplicand and a multiplier, adjustments for future contingencies, and the elements to be reckoned in assessing damages.

1. The claimant appeals for enhancement of compensation, while the respondent - Kerala State Road Transport Corporation cross appeals for rejection of the claim, if not, for reduction of compensation.

2. The appellant was travelling by a bus, belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (shortly called the KSRTC hereinafter), K.L.X 3733 from Trivandrum to Palghat. During the small hours of 8-5-1980, the bus was involved in an accident. It rammed into a fully laden lorry (M.Y.G. 7855), pushing it 40 meters forward, before it capsized. Even the chasis was warped. The impact was so tremendous, that several passengers were seriously injured. The Tribunal found on good evidence that, the accident was solely due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. This finding cannot be disputed; and has not been seriously disputed.

3. The claimant suffered injuries and underwent prolonged treatment at different hospitals, including the Medical College Hospital, Calicut and Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. He was subjected to ten surgical operations. He also visited Moscow twice, for treatment. From 8-5-1980 to 8-11983, for almost three years, be was in and out of hospitals by reason of the injuries sustained, in the aforesaid accident. Even there-after, his left leg was virtually immobilised.

4. The claimant is a person of academic attainments, holding a Masters degree and also a Doctoral degree in Economics from the Keil University in West Germany. He was the Director of Indian School of Social Sciences and Editor of a journal, 'Social Scientist', and also a Fellow of the Indian Institute of Economics. Member. State Planning Board and Member of the Syndicate of the Kerala University. His potential to earn, it is said, is considerable but due to his personal predilections, he was content with an honorarium of Rs. 1500/- per mensem. As a result of the accident, be lost the assignments he held. Besides himself (as PW. 5). PW. 8 speaks to this. The appellant claimed in all, a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,67,774/-. instead. Treating the monthly earning and Rs. 1500/- and applying a multiplier of 15 years, the Tribunal found that he would have earned Rs. 1,50 000/-. Clearly, there is an error in computation because, Rs. 1500/- per mensem multiplied by 12 months, further multiplied by 15 years would be Rs. 2.70.000/-. The Tribunal deducted 25 per cent for future uncertainties. The bone of contention, centres round the quantum of damages on account of loss of future earnings, the appellant contesting the award as meagre, and the respondent as exaggerated. Award under other heads, is only faintly challenged.

5. We shall proceed to consider, the rival contentions relating to loss of future earnings. Counsel for appellant would say that Rs. 500/-per mensem was a modest estimate, and that the appellant had vast career advancement opportunities and prospect of greater recognition in his sphere of life, implying higher potential earning. He was 44 years old at the time of the accident, and mellower years lay ahead, according to counsel. Respondent, on the other hand, would say that future earnings, having regard to the nature of the work he did. were not diminished. That future contingencies could depress his earning capacity, was also suggested.

6. No scales of precision, nor yard-sticks of easy measurement are available to ascertain damages. To see ahead the visage of future, is no easy task. Forensic process is bound to be conjectural, as estimate can be no real substitute for fact. Future contingencies are not always adverse, nor depressing. Advancements and rewards of fortune are possible.

7. Judicial evaluation has to be made in this twilight zone. Principles have been enunciated and methodology indicated by judicial authority. In the words of Lord Reid in Taylor v. Conner (1971 A.C. 117):

"The general principle is not in doubt. They are entitled to such a sum, as will make good the financial loss wh