AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Shri Ram. Kishor Arya, counsel for the appellant, Shri H.C. Pandey and Shri Puran Singh Rawat, counsel for the respondent No. 2.
This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation.
By the present appeal, filed u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the by the judgment and award dated. 28.4.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 264 of 2003.
Briefly stated, motor accident claim petition No. 264 of 2003 was made u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by the claimant Munesh Kumar. According to the claimant, on 30.4.2003 he was coming to his village Samthal by bicycle. At about 7 a.m. as soon as he reached near Wilsonia School at Moradabad-Delhi National Highway, Car No. D.L. 3 C.V. 7163 which was going towards Delhi from the side of Moradabacl dashed the bicycle of the claimant as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. It has been stated that the said car was being driven rashly and negligently. The claimant was taken to Sai Lok Hospital, Moradabad and his treatment is still going on. The accident was reported to the police Station Pakwara, District Moradabad on 9.5.2003. It has been stated that the claimant was aged about 26 years and he was having sound health. The claimant was using to do the work of Handpump mechanic and was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The claimant has spent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and he has become partly disabled. He is unable to do his job. The claimant has suffered monetary loss and mental agony as well.
A written statement has been filed on behalf of Friends Globe Travels Limited stating therein that the said vehicle was registered with Friends Globe Travels Limited and the said vehicle was insured with Tata AIG Insurance Company Limited. It has been denied that any accident had taken place by the car in question on the alleged date. The compensation has been claimed in exaggeration. The driver of vehicle in question was holding the valid driving license. The insurance company in question is liable to indemnify the claim and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Friends Globe Travels Limited.
The Tata AIG Insurance Company has filed a written statement denying the averments contained in the claim petition. It has been submitted that claimant has not produced the copy of first information report, copy of site map, injury report, medical report, X-ray report, copy of certificate issued by the Medical Officer, copy of driving license, copy of registration certificate, etc. as per the provision laid down in Code of Civil Procedure.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed:
1- D;k fnukad 30-4-2003 dks le; djhc izkr% 7-00 cts LFkku foYlksfu;k Ldwy ds lkeus eqjknkckn fnYyh jk"V�h; jktekxZ Fkkuk ikdokM+k ftyk eqjknkckn esa dkj la[;k Mh-,y- 3 lh-ch- &7163 ds pkyd }kjk dkj dks rsth o ykijokkgh ls pykdj ;kph eus''k dqekj dh lkbZfdy es VDdj ekj nh ftlls mldks xEHkhj pksVs vkbZ \\
2- D;k iz''uxr nq?kZVuk ds le; nq?kZVukxzLr dkj la[;k Mh- ,y- 3 lh- ch-&7163 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh pkyd ykbZlsUl ugh Fkk \\
3- ;kph izfrdj dh fdruh /kujkf''k vkSj fdl foi{kh ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \\
While deciding as to whether on 30.4.2003 at about 7 a.m. near Wilsonia School at Moradabad - Delhi Highway, car No. D.L. 3 CB-7163 dashed the bicycle of the claimant Munesh Kumar by driving the same rashly and negligently as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of P.W. 2 Chandrahas who was the ocular witness of the accident. He has deposed that on the date of said accident, he was going to Chaudharpur from Moradabad by motorcycle. The bicyclist was going towards Bagarpur and the car was going towards Moradabad and near Wilsonia School when the claimant was crossing the road, the car in question dashed the claimant as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. This witness has also deposed that the car was moving at the speed of 80-90 kilometers per hour. Relying upon the statement of P.W. 2, the claims tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of car in question.
While deciding with regard to holding of a valid driving license by the driver in question, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the driving license produced on the record along with the written statement filed by the Friends Globe Travels Limited. The claims tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver in question was holding a valid driving license at the time of accident.
While deciding with regard to quantum of compensation, the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards disability and Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, a sum. of Rs. 90,000/- has been awarded towards compensation by the claims tribunal. Findings recorded by the claims tribunal in this regard are reproduced below:
12- vc tgkW rd izfrdj dh jkf''k dk iz''u gS ;kph dks crkSj ih- MCyw- 1 vius c;ku esa dguk gS fd mlds bZykt es djhc ,d yk[k :i;k [kpZ gqvk gS A ysfdu mUgksus tks fcy nkf[ky fd;s gS] vkSj tks muds vf/koDrk }kjk viuh cgl eas crk;s x;s gS] og 73]000@& :i;s ds fcy gSA tgkaW rd bu fcyks dk iz''u gS bu fcyksa esa cgqr ls ,sls fcy gS ftudks nqckjk mlh frfFk dks cuk;k x;k gS] ftu ij fo''okl ugh fd;k tk ldrk A lkWbZ vLirky dks tks vly fcy 9x@55 gS] og 26]975@& :0 dk gS vkSj mlds vykok tks vU; fcy gS] mu lc dks ns[kus ds i''pkr~ eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gWw fd ;g fcy vf/kd ls vf/kd 50]000@& :i;s ds gS u fd 73]000@& :i;s ds gS D;ksfd bu fcyks es cgqr ls ,sls fcy gS tks 9 x@62] 9x@63] 9x@64] 9x@65] 9x@66] 9x@67] 9x@68] 9x@69 gSA buls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd ;g ,d gh frfFk ea rS;kj fd;s x;s gS vkSj ,d gh frfFk esa nks nks ckj isesUV fn[kk;k x;k gS ftudks lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa bu fcyks ij fo''okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk A blh izdkj 9x@73] 9x@74] 9x@69 Hkh gS vkSj 9x@81 Hkh gS A bu lc fcyks dks ns[kus ds ckn eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwW fd ;kph bu fcyks ds ckckr~ rks mlus nkf[ky fd;s gS] dsoy eq0 50]000@& :0 dh jkf''k izfrdj ds :i esa ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS A tgkW rd mlds fodykax gksus dk iz''u gS mldh vksj ls lh0,e0vks0 eqjknkckn dk fodykaxrk izek.ki= nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ftles 40 izfr''kr fMl,fofyVh n''kkZbZ xbZ gS ysfdu bl izek.ki= ls dsoy ;g irk pyrk gS fd ;kph ds ysQ~V vij ,.M yksvj fyECl esa 40 izfr''kr viaxrk gS A vc iz''u ;g gS fd ;kph dk tks bZykt lkbZ vLirky eas gqvk mlds ckcr~ mlus mijksDr reke fcy nkf[ky fd;s gS vkSj fjiksZV~l nkf[ky dh gS A mlds eqrkfcd mlds efLr"d esa pksaV Fkh] ftldk bZykt gqvk ysfdu gkFk vkSj Vkax dh gfM~M+;ks ds VwVus ds ckcr dksbZ fjiksVZ ugh gS A lkbZ vLirky dh fjiksZV 31 x@1 dsoy gsM bUtjh dks n''kkZrh gS vkSj blesa fdlh QzSDpj dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gS A tks ,Dljs IysV~l ;kph us nkf[ky dh gS] tks 32 x@1 yxk;r 32x@3 gS mudh fjiksZV nkf[ky ugh dh x;h gS A fcuk fjiksZV ls ;g ugh dgk tk ldrk fd ;g ,Dljs IysV ;kph ls lEcfU/kr gS ;k ugh D;ksfd ,Dljs IysV~l dk uEcj Hkh fjiksZV ds fy, ntZ fd;k tkrk gS A bl izdkj tgkW rd ;kph dh viaxrk dk iz''u gS blds fy, ;kph dks eq0 20]000@& :0 izfrdj ds :i esa fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr le>rk gwW A vc tgkW rd ;kph dks gqbZ vkfFkZd ,oa ekufld {kfr dk iz''u gS bles ''kd ugh gS fd ;kph dks pksVks ds dkj.k vkfFkZd ,oa ekufld dfBukb;ks dk lkeuk djuk iM+k gksxk A ftlds fy, eS ;kph dks eq0 20]000@& :0 crkSj izfrdj fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr le>rk gwW A bl izdkj ;kph dks dqy eq0 90] 000@& :0 �uCcs gtkj :i;s� crkSj izfrdj fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS A
On perusal of the record, I find no infirmity with the findings recorded by the claims tribunal and the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal cannot be said to be unjustified and improper.
However, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards mental and physical agony in addition to the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal in view of the judgment of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, , where the Apex Court has 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 upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far 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 of life.
The claim under Sl. No. 16 for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life under Sl. No. 17, are claims for non-pecuniary loss. The appellant has claimed lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000 each under two heads. The High Court has allowed Rs. 1,00,000 against the claims of Rs. 6,00,000. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration.
Subject to aforesaid enhancement of Rs. 10,000/-towards mental and physical agony, appeal lacks men r and is dismissed. No order as to costs.