be awarded in tort actions involving personal injuries. These categories are referred to as heads of claim and can be divided into pecuniary and non-pecuniary subsets, analogous to the more general distinction made between economic and non-economic damages in other common law jurisdictions. Indian tort law recognises the following pecuniary heads of claim: Loss of earning. Medical, hospital and nursing expenses. The loss of matrimonial prospects. Contemporary Indian jurisprudence also recognises the following non-pecuniary heads of claim: Loss of expectation of life. Loss of amenities or capacity for enjoying life. Loss or impairment of physiological function. Pain and suffering. Approach towards pain and suffering In analysing pain and suffering, several factors such as severity of injury, medical treatment required, psychological stress and long-term physical and emotional scars, would be taken into account. In cases of victims who were unconscious, one must award not only for the "loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life, but also for pain and suffering". Such damages are awarded not as a matter of "solace". This view comes close to that expressed by Lord Scarman in Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority, difference being that an award must be "made even for pain and suffering in case of unconscious plaintiffs". The reason for so doing is that it "looks strange that wrongdoer whose negligence makes the victim unconscious is placed in a more advantageous position than one who inflicts a lesser injury which does not render the victim unconscious". There are three guiding principles in measuring the quantum of compensation for pain and suffering: Amount of compensation awarded must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Regard must be had to awards made in comparable cases. The sum awarded must to a considerable extent be conventional. Punitive damages Influenced by Rookes v Barnard, Indian courts initially ruled that punitive damages can be awarded in only three categories: Cases where the plaintiff is injured by the oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a servant of the government. Cases in which the defendant’s conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff. Where provided by statute. However, this stand has since shifted with an expanding tort jurisdiction. The Supreme Court accepted a committee's suggestion to evolve a "principle of liability – punitive in nature – on account of