The court emphasized that permanent disability warrants a re-evaluation of compensation based on future earnings and lifelong attendant needs.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant sustained injuries in an accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'MACT' for brevity) granted a total sum of Rs. 4,81,000. The High Court, by the impugned order, enhanced it to Rs. 13,08,000.

3. Heard Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3 - insurer.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised three contentions. First, he pointed out that the income had been taken at Rs. 2,000 per month. He would point out that the appellant had been earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000. There is no reason for the High Court to not take the income at Rs. 10,000. Secondly, he pointed out that he is entitled to future prospects as regards his income. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of this court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar , 2020 ACT 2695 (SC). He would also point out that this is a case where as a result of injuries the appellant has become a paraplegic.

5. He drew our attention to the order passed by MACT which describes his condition:
"According to the doctor, at the time of discharge on 7.10.1997 there was no change in neurological status of the patient and he was having paraplegia and with a fixator on. The doctor stated that on account of fracture of vertebra D12 and paraplegia in the lower limb, the claimant was not having any control over bladder and bowel. The doctor also stated that the claimant shall not be able to assume any physical work on account of the injuries and paraplegia and he will require the services of attendants throughout his life. According to the witness, the claimant shall not be able to perform matrimonial obligations."

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would point out that before the High Court, the appellant had himself canvassed for an income calculated at Rs. 2,000 per month. He also pointed out that the compensation as ordered by the High Court is otherwise reasonable and no interference is called for.

7. As far as the monthly income is concerned, we do not think any ground exists to increase the same. This is for two reasons. First, the accident took place in the year 1997. More importantly, before the High Court, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurer, the calculations were taken out on the basis that the appellant was having monthly income of Rs. 2,000. In such circumstances, we do not think it would be reasonable to increase the income any further. However, as far as pain and suffering is concerned, we note that as per the proposal submitted by the appellant which is relied upon by the insurer, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was sought, but what was granted is Rs. 1,50,000. We think that having regard to the nature of the injuries and his condition, the appellant should be granted an enhancement of Rs. 1,50,000. In other words, accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to Rs. 3,00,000 towards pain and suffering.

8. As regards compensation for an attendant, it would appear that the appellant, being 100 per cent permanently disabled, requires an attendant. This is a condition under which the appellant will spend the rest of his life. In such circumstances, we are inclined to make a provision for a reasonable compensation. The High Court has granted compensation for attendant, transportation and special diet together in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. We are of the view that the said amount cannot be described as reasonable compensation, having regard to all the heads and particularly the purpose for which the compensation is ordered. We would, therefore, enhance the said compensation under the said heads, viz