Ravinder Kumar vs Gulshan Kumar Sohi

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award of compensation passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 24.8.99 for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 49,041/- 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 28.11.1992 at about 8.30 p.m the appellant was coming from his office at Connaught Place on his two wheeler at a very normal speed and when he reached near E-2 Greater Kailash, car No. DL 3C C3605 came at a very high speed from the opposite side and hit the scooter of appellant bearing registration No. DL 3SC 6844 as a result of which the appellant fell down and received multiple injuries. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 1 who was driving the offending car at a very high speed. The appellant was removed to Mool Chand Khairti Ram Hospital and remained admitted there from 29.11.92 to 10.12.92.

A claim petition was filed on 22.4.93 and an award was passed on 24.8.99. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Sh. M.P. Sharma Counsel for the appellant 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 Ld. Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the facts of the case, evidence, documents and law while passing the impugned Judgment. It is further claimed that the Ld. Trial court has wrongly declined the statement of PW5 who is the owner and partner of Kumar Industries. It is further urged that court has erred in granting Rs. 15,000/- for 10% permanent disability, pain and mental agony to the appellant. Further the counsel pleaded that the Tribunal erred in awarding an interest of 12% pa instead of 18% pa.

Mr. Pradeep Gaur, advocate for the respondent submitted that there is no justification for interference in the Award.

I have heard the counsels for the appellant and respondent and perused the award.

In a plethora of cases the Hon''ble 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. 23341/- for expenditure on medicine and treatment, Rs. 800/- towards loss of salary; Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, conveyance etc., Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering.

On perusal of the award, it is manifest that the appellant had placed on record various bills which are Ex.PW4/2 to Ex.PW4/5 total of which comes to Rs. 15,241/-. He also proved on record receipt Ex. PW2/1 for purchase of iron rod for a sum of Rs. 8000/- and X-ray receipt Ex.PW4/2 for Rs. 100/-. The total amount comes to Rs. 23,341/-. I do not find any infirmity in the order in this regard and the same is not interfered with.

As regards conveyance expenses and special diet, nothing has been brought on record. The appellant suffered fracture in his leg and iron rod was inserted into his leg. The tribunal after taking note of the fact that the appellant remained under medical treatment for long period but in the absence of any cogent evidence awarded Rs. 10,000/- for conveyance & special diet etc. I am inclined to enhance the same to Rs. 15,000/-.

As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- to the appellant. The appellant sustained fracture in his leg and iron rod was inserted into it. In such circumstance, I feel that the compensation towards mental pain & suffering should be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-.

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. 10,000/-.

As regards loss of earnings, the appellant has placed two salary certificates on record. One has been issued by Kumar Hotels and Restaurants showing his salary to be Rs. 1500/- p.m and in another certificate issued by Kumar Industries, monthly salary is mentioned as Rs. 800/- p.m. In the certificate issued by Kumar Industries it is mentioned that the appellant was doing part time job. Part time job is not a permanent job. The same cannot be taken into account. IN view of the injury suffered by the appellant, I presume that he could not have worked for 3 months. His loss of earning comes to Rs. 4500/-.

As regards future loss in earning capacity, the appellant has not filed any certificate of disability before the Tribunal. At the back of registration card issued by Mool Chand Hospital, it is mentioned by the doctor that the appellant has deformity of 10%. This certificate has not been issued by the board of doctors constituted by the Medical Superintendent of Government Hospital. Hence, this certificate is of no evidentiary value. I am not inclined to grant any compensation for future loss in earning capacity.

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 18% 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. 23,341/- is awarded for expenses towards treatment; Rs. 15,000/- for special diet & conveyance expenses; Rs. 4500/- for loss of wages; Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life & Rs. 20,000/- for pain and sufferings.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 72,841/- from Rs. 49,041/- 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 respondent insurance company within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

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