Harish Chander Sharma vs Umer Mohd. and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award of compensation passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 04.05.99 for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 3,27,900/- with an interest @ 12% PA for the injuries caused to the claimant appellant in the motor accident.

The brief conspectus of facts is as under:

On 13.12.93 appellant Harish Chander Sharma was driving his two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DDH 4143 and one Sh.Sohan Lal Sharma was sitting on the pillion seat. At about 2.15 p.m. when they reached Gurgaon Delhi Road near Dhaula Kuan, a truck bearing No. HR 21 7585 driven by respondent No. 1 at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter with a force. Both fell down and appellant received multiple grievous injuries on right leg and multiple fracture of finger bones.

A claim petition was filed on 18.04.94 and an award was passed on 04.05.1999. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. P.N. Talwar counsel for the appellant claimant 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 awarded only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental pain & suffering, learned Counsel expressed his discontent to that as well and averred that it should have been Rs. 1.00 lac. It was further stated that the tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1.00 lacs on account of attendant and extra travelling expenses, whereas it should have awarded Rs. 3.00 lacs on this account. Learned Counsel further contended that Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of five and it should have applied multiplier of 10 years. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that appellant has suffered 60% permanent disablement and therefore the future loss would be Rs. 2500/- per month. He has taken the plea that at the time of retirement the appellant would be retiring at the minimum salary of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and accordingly the Tribunal ought to have calculated the amount of future loss of income. Further the counsel pleaded that the Tribunal erred in awarding an interest of 9% pa instead of 15% pa.

I have heard the counsel for the appellant Sh PN Talwar and have perused the award.

In a plethora of cases the Apex 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. 5,000/- for expenses towards medicines, special diet and conveyance expenses; Rs. 1,00,000/- for permanent injury & travelling expenses; Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs. 52,900/- for loss of leaves, Rs. 1,50,000/- for future loss of earning.

On perusal of the award, it becomes manifest that the appellant had not placed on record any bill for his treatment, conveyance and special diet. The tribunal took cognizance of the fact that the appellant sustained serious injuries and suffered amputation of his index finger and right leg finger and awarded Rs. 5000/-. The appellant''s left leg''s finger and his left index finger were amputated. I therefore enhance the compensation to Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 5000/- each head).

As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant. The appellant sustained fracture and his index finger and right foot finger were amputated. In such circumstance, I feel that the compensation towards mental pain & suffering should be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-.

As regards the compensation towards permanent disability, the Ld. tribunal has granted Rs. 1,00,000/- form permanent injury and travelling expenses. I feel that the tribunal has not erred in awarding the same and the order of Tribunal is not interfered with in this regard.

The Ld. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards future loss of income. The appellant is a Government employee and getting his pay regularly. He will keep on getting it upto the age of 60 years. The Tribunal has rightly granted Rs. 1,50,000/- for the future income loss by adopting multiplier of five. I do not find any infirmity in the order and the same is not interfered with.

The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 52,900/- towards loss of leave. The appellant remained under treatment for about one year and he was getting Rs. 4201/- p.m. at the time of accident. Therefore, the tribunal has not erred in awarding the compensation under this heard. The order passed by the tribunal is not interfered with.

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. 20,000/-.

As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 12% p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same should be enhanced to 24% p.a., 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 @ 12% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.

In view of the foregoing, Rs. 15,000/- is awarded for expenses towards treatment, special diet and for conveyance expenses; Rs. 30,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs. 52,900/- for loss of leaves, Rs. 1,50,000/- for future loss of income, Rs. 1,00,000/- for permanent disability and travelling expenses and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 3,67,000/- from Rs. 3,27,900/- along with interest on the differential amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition 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.