Amrit Lal vs Mohinder Singh and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award of compensation passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 25.6.99 for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 84,708/- with an interest @ 9% PA for the injuries caused to the claimant appellant in the motor accident.

The brief conspectus of facts is as under:

On 3.5.94 at about 2 p.m., the petitioner Amrit Lal was hit by a truck bearing registration number DLL 4853 which was being driven rashly and negligently and at a very high speed by the driver respondent No. 1. As a result of this impact, the petitioner received injuries.

A claim petition was filed on 14.09.94 and an award was passed on 25.6.99. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. O.P Mannie counsel for the appellant claimant claims enhancement through this appeal. The counsel urged that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and insufficient looking at the circumstances of the case. He assailed the said judgment of Learned Tribunal firstly, on the ground that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the claimant appellant at Rs. 1382/- PM stating that the same should have been Rs. 1500/- p.m. Based on this, it is further contended that the loss of income should also be enhanced, accordingly. The counsel shows his discontent for not awarding any amount towards mental pain & suffering and averred that it should have been Rs. 50,000/-. He also showed his discontent for not awarding any amount for loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities besides loss of marriage prospectus. The counsel further contended that the Ld. Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 14 only in assessing the compensation on account of disability suffered by the appellant. It is further contended that permanent disability has been assessed at 30% while it is to the extent of 40%. Further the counsel pleaded that the Tribunal erred in awarding an interest of 9% pa only from 14.7.98 instead of 18% p.a. from the date of filling of the petition.

I have heard Sh. O.P Mannie, counsel for the Appellant and Sh. Kanwal Chaudhary, counsel for the Respondent.

In a plethora of cases the Court and various High Courts have held that the emphasis of the courts in personal injury cases should be on awarding substantial, just and fair damages and not mere token amount. In cases of personal injuries the general principle is that such sum of compensation should be awarded which puts the injured in the same position as he would have been had accident not taken place. In examining the question of damages for personal injury, it is axiomatic that pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damages are required to be taken in to account. In this regard the Supreme Court in The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, , has classified pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as under:

This Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. laying the principles posited: (SCC p. 556, para 9)

Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.

In the instant case the tribunal has awarded Rs. 69,652/80/- on account of disability, Rs. 11056/- for salary of 8 months, Rs. 3000/- for expenses towards medicines; Rs. 1000/- for conveyance.

On perusal of the award, it becomes manifest that the appellant had placed on record various bills which comes to a total of Rs. 3000/-. The appellant had also placed on record medical bills, Ex.P14 to to Ex.P21, issued by different medical stores. I do not find any infirmity in the order in this regard and the same is not interfered with.

As regards conveyance expenses, nothing has been brought on record. The appellant suffered crush injury on left foot. The tribunal after taking notice of this fact and in the absence of any cogent evidence awarded Rs. 1000/- for conveyance expenses. Keeping in view the injury suffered by the appellant, the compensation under this head is enhanced to Rs. 5000/-.

As regards special diet expenses, nothing was brought on record by the appellant to prove the expenses incurred by him towards special diet. The tribunal did not take notice of the fact that since the appellant sustained serious crush injury on left foot, he must have also consumed protein-rich/special diet for his early recovery. I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 10000/- towards special diet expenses.

As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal has not awarded any amount to the appellant. The appellant sustained crush injury of left foot. In such circumstance, I feel that the compensation towards mental pain & suffering should be granted to Rs. 25,000/-.

As regards the compensation towards permanent disability & loss of future earning, I feel that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the income of the insured. The income of Rs. 1500/- could not be proved by the appellant. Therefore the Ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the income on the basis of the minimum wages of Rs. 1382/- p.m. The disability has also been taken rightly as 30% by the tribunal in this case. By taking the said disability, the loss of income comes to Rs. 414.60 p.m. or Rs. 4975.20 p.a. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14. The age of the injured/appellant is stated to be 20 years. At the age of 20 the appropriate multiplier is of 16. The amount comes to Rs. 79,603/-(4975.20 x 16). Therefore, after considering all these factors, the compensation towards disability is awarded at Rs. 79,603/- to the appellant.

As regards loss of amenities, Compensation for loss of amenities of life compensates victim for the limitation, resulting from the defendant''s negligence, on the injured person''s ability to participate in and derive pleasure from the normal activities of daily life, or the individual''s inability to pursue his talents, recreational interests, hobbies or avocations. In essence, compensation for loss of expectation of life compensates an individual for loss of life and loss of the pleasures of living. I feel that the tribunal erred in not awarding the same and in the circumstances of the case same is allowed to the extent of Rs. 5000/-.

As regards loss of earnings, no proof regarding income of the appellant was brought on record. The tribunal has taken the income as per the minimum wages i.e. Rs. 1382/- p.m. and awarded loss of salary for eight months to the tune of Rs. 11,056/-. I do not find any infirmity in the order in this regard and the same is not interfered with.

As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 9% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same should be enhanced to 18% p.a. From the day of filing of the petitioner till realisation, I feel that the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is just and fair and requires no interference. No rate of interest is fixed u/s 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest is awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to have been paid to him. Time and again the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the rate of interest to be awarded should be just and fair depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and taking in to consideration relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and other economic factors. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the award regarding award of interest @ 9% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with. The Tribunal in its order has given justifiable reasons for awarding the interest from 14.7.98. There is no justification to interfere in the same.

In view of the foregoing, Rs. 3000/- is awarded for expenses towards treatment; Rs. 10,000/- for special diet; Rs. 5000/- for conveyance expenses; Rs. 11,056/- for loss of wages; Rs. 5,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life & Rs. 79,603/- for permanent disability and Rs. 25,000/- for pain and sufferings.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,38,659/- from Rs. 84,708/80 along with interest on differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition in this Court till realisation of the award and the same shall be paid to the appellant by the respondents as directed by the tribunal and within 30 days of this order.

With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.