5. The appellants have asked for further enhancement of compensation before us. Grievance of the appellants is that the victim has been under­compensated, having regard to the degree of injury suffered by him. He has specifically raised the plea for award of compensation under   the   head   of   loss   of   future prospects. It is also his case that the High Court erred in law in applying the multiplier of 16.  It has been urged on behalf of the appellants   that   the   multiplier 17   as   per   the   award   of   the Tribunal, should have been retained.

6. On behalf of   the   insurance   company,   prayer   of   the appellants for enhancement of compensation has been opposed. It has been argued that there was contributory negligence on the part of the first appellant in that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. On that count, they want reduction of 50% of the compensation from the judgment and order under appeal. Quantification of his monthly income as Rs.3,500/­ has also been questioned by the insurance company in their counter-affidavit. The case of Sri Ramachandrappa vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] has been referred to in this regard. On the question as to what would constitute just compensation, the cases of Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [(2010) 10   SCC 254]   and National   Insurance Company   Ltd. vs. Kusuma and Anr.  [(2011) 13 SCC 306] have been cited on their behalf.   It has also been argued that as he was a construction worker, he   must have   had   received   compensation   under   the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1966 as   also   Workmen   Compensation   Act,   1923. The insurance company’s case is that personal expenses of the victim ought to have been taken to be one­fourth of the loss of income assessed. The plea for attendant charges has been resisted on the ground that no service by any bystander had been proved and no bill for expenses for surgery or hospitalisation during the last 17 years had been produced.  The insurance company, however, has not come up in appeal questioning the High Court’s finding on the heads of compensation and quantum of compensation awarded under these   heads. These   submissions of   the   insurance company we cannot entertain at this stage while dealing with the victim’s appeal for enhancement of compensation. Otherwise also, we do not think these submissions have any legal basis in the context of the present appeal. The forum of first instance or the High Court did not return any finding on the first appellant being   under   influence of alcohol. In the   victim’s   appeal,   we cannot permit the insurance company to raise this plea at this stage. Moreover, submission that the appellant must have drawn compensation under different welfare statutes is inferential. The insurance company has not disclosed any evidence to sustain their stand on this count.

7. The High Court has assessed monthly income of the victim to be Rs.3500/­. This was enhanced from the Tribunal’s quantification of Rs.2,500/­ per month. We do not want to disturb the finding of the High Court on this point. This is essentially a finding on question of fact. The respondent insurance company has cited the case of Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avatar Tomar & Ors. [(2012) 2 SCC 267] to contend that in the context  of loss  of future  earning, physical  disability resulting from an accident ought to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. The approach of the Tribunal as also the High Court in the case of the victim has been in that line only. The respondents also sought to rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Priya Vasant Kalgutkar vs. Murad Shaikh & Ors. [(2009) 15 SCC 54]. This case, however, relates to computation of compensation for injuries   suffered   by   a   minor.     Ratio   of this   decision   has   no application in the facts of this case. We are, however, also of the opinion that the High Court went wrong in not awarding any sum under the   head   of   loss   of   future   prospects.   In   the   case   of National Insurance Company   Ltd.   vs.   Pranay   Sethi   &   Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], a Constitution Bench has opined that the standardisation of just compensation is to include addition of future prospects to the income of the victim at the time of occurrence of the accident. This was a case where the victim had succumbed to the injuries. The present appeal relates to a victim, who has survived the accident but his disability has been assessed to be 100% by the High Court. We confirm this finding of the High Court. In the case of Parminder Singh   vs.  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.  [(2019) 7 SCC 217], a Bench comprising of two Judges of this Court found 50% of the income of the victim was to be assessed as loss of future prospects. Earlier, this Court broadly took the same view in the case of Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways [(2014) 3 SCC 210]. The course mandated by this Court in the case of Parminder Singh (supra) is addition to the monthly income of the victim, 50% thereof as loss of future prospects to arrive at compensation for loss of income for the purpose of application of the multiplier. This method of computation is based on sound logic and we choose to apply the same methodology in this appeal also. The loss of earning capacity of the first appellant is 100%.  On this basis, his loss of future earnings would have to be calculated treating income of the victim to be Rs.3,500/­ per month, to which loss of future prospects at the rate of 40% thereof is to be added, which would make it Rs.4900/­ per month. This is the computation method directed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) so far as self­employed persons are concerned. We direct addition of 40% as there is no material before us to prove that the victim had a permanent job. Evidence before the Tribunal was that he was a skilled laborer in a building construction project. There was no evidence that he was on their permanent roll. The multiplier to be applicable in this case would be following the specification contained in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121].  Accordingly, his loss of future earnings would have   to   be   calculated   first   by   multiplying   Rs.4,900/­   by which  would  come  to  Rs.58,800/­  This  would  be his   annual income.   Once   multiplier   of   16   is   applied,   his   loss   of   future earning would come to Rs.9,40,800/­, considering that degree of his disability is 100%.  As the appellant has survived though at present in almost “coma stage” as observed by the High Court, we reject the insurance company’s plea for making any deduction towards personal living expenses.

8. We also find   that   there   was   no   compensation   awarded towards expenses   for   a caregiver barring a  paltry   sum   of Rs.6,000/­ as bystander expenses. The defence of the insurance company for keeping the said sum at that negligible level is that no evidence had been led as regards expenses incurred towards any medical attendant.   But going by the work the victim was doing and his physical state of being resulting from his injuries, conclusion has to be inevitable that he required and still requires caregiver round­the­clock and round the year to remain barely functional.  Judging by the stratum of the society he comes from, it would be irrational to expect that he would have been in a position to directly engage a caregiver after his accident. It would not be an unreasonable assumption that his family members must have had to fit into that role. They could perform the role of caregiver   only   by   diverting   their own   time   from   any form   of gainful employment which could have generated some income. We proceed   on   the   same   assumption   on   his   requirement   of continued medical treatment post­discharge from the hospital. There is observation in the judgment of the High Court that he was undergoing treatment in “Aarogya Keralam” Palliative Caring Scheme. We are of the opinion that Rs.7,00,000/­ ought to be awarded as lumpsum, composite amount for medical attendant charges and future medical treatment. In the case of  Kajal  vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 413] for attendant charges, a Bench of two­Judges of this Court has held that the multiplier methodology ought to be applied. On the other hand, in the case of Parminder   Singh  (supra)   a   lumpsum   amount   has   been awarded.  In the facts of the given case, we are of the opinion that award of lumpsum would be the proper course considering the fact that the first appellant was a daily labourer. In traumatic times   after   his accident,   his   family   was   unlikely   to   maintain detailed records of the expenses incurred.

9. Under the head   pain   and   suffering   the   High   Court   has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/­. The appellants want this sum to be raised to Rs.6,00,000/­ relying on a judgment of this Court in the   case   of  Mallikaarjun   Vs.   Divisional   Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.  &  Anr.  [(2014) 14 SCC 396]. In the case of Kajal (supra), where the victim was a young girl of 12 years having suffered 100% disability, the amount awarded was Rs.15,00,000/­ under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities.  But this judgment qualified such award with a caveat that the sum was awarded in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Raj Kumar vs.   Ajay Kumar &   Anr. [(2011) 1 SCC 343] it has been observed that when compensation is awarded by treating loss of future earning capacity to be 100% or   even   anything   more   than   50%   the   need   to   award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear. As a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under those heads. It   is   a fact   that   in   the   cases   of Kajal  (supra)   and Mallikaarjun (supra), the victims were minor children.  Their loss of income and permanent disability compensation were computed treating their income to be Rs.15,000/­ per annum. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the High Court has assessed the annual income to be Rs.42,000/­ (Rs.3500×12). But this very fact cannot altogether deprive the victim from compensation under the head pain   and   suffering.   The High   Court   had awarded Rs.10,000/­only   under   this head.   We   assess   the same   to be Rs.3,00,000/­.  Considering the observations made in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), to which we have already referred, we reduce the sum awarded by the High Court under the head loss of amenities from Rs.40,000/­ to Rs.10,000/­