Dr. Ram Chandra Goyal vs Mool Chand and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—On 26.5.1988 while returning back home on his scooter, the appellant, Dr. Ram Chandra Goyal was hit by a Truck. Consequently, he suffered multiple fractures specially of the knee and of the left leg. Resultantly, he suffered a disability to the extent of 14 per cent. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, wherein he claimed a condensation to the tune of Rs 1,62.000

In order to substantiate his case, the appellant examined himself, along with three other witnesses. However, the respondent No. 3, the New India Assurance Company, did not examine any witness in its defence. The learned Tribunal formulated six issues. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide award dated 12.9.1994 the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation merely of Rs. 25,000 TO the claimant. Since the claimant is aggrieved by the said award, therefore, he has filed the present appeal before us.

Mr. K.N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the claimant, has argued that because of the said accident the claimant could not join his service as a doctor for five months. However, die learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the loss of his salary for those months. He has also argued that the claimant has not been paid any compensation under the category of "pain and agony". He has further contended that although the claimant has suffered a disability to the extent of 14 per cent, the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 25,000 by way of compensation.

On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, has contended that the claimant has not produced any evidence to show that he was on leave for five months and was confined to bed during that period. Furthermore, he has argued that a lumpsum amount of Rs. 7,000 was paid, which included the compensation for the category of "pain and agony". Therefore, he has supported the impugned award.

We have not only considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel, but have also scanned the record and examined the impugned award.

In the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, , Hon''ble the Supreme Court had observed as under:

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.. account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.

Although the impugned award was delivered prior to the above noted case, but the factors enumerated by Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above noted case were not new. They had been laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme no Court even earlier. Thus, the learned Tribunal should have kept these relevant factors in mind while deciding the compensation to be paid to the claimant.

The claimant has not produced any evidence to show that he had to take leave from his work for five months. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in not awarding any compensation for loss of salary. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has directed the amount of Rs. 7,000 as compensation for the "incidental expenses" incurred by the appellant. But not a single paisa has been awarded to the appellant under the category of "pain and agony". Moreover, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the future inconvenience, frustration, disapointment, prospects, hardship and discomfort, which the claimant would face in his life, because of the injury suffered by him.

While dealing with the injury caused to a child, who had suffered a disability the extent of the 14 per cent, this Court in the case of Bheem Singh v. Vimal Kumar Gain Ors. S.B. Civil & Misc. Appeal No. 100/1996, decided on 24.11.1997 had enhanced the compensation from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 1,10,000. Considering the pain and agony suffered by the claimant while recovering from the injuries, considering the frustration, disappointment, prospects, hardship and mental stress in life and also considering the extent of permanent disability, we enhance the compensation from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 1,10,000.

The appeal is, thus, allowed. It is directed that an enhanced compensation Rs. 1,10,000 should be paid to the claimant by the Insurance Company, along with the interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition the date of passing of this order and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of this order till the realisation of the said amount.