Union of India (UOI) and Others vs S. Tarlok Singh

J.P. Singh, J.—Union of India and its functionaries have filed this Appeal questioning Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu's Award of

March 18, 2005 in Claim Petition No. 383 whereby compensation amounting to Rs. 3,77,220/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

has been awarded to the respondent for the injuries he had suffered when the Maruti Car in which he was traveling was hit by Union of India's

Jeep No. JK02J/7783 near Nagrota, Jammu.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and examined the records.

In so far as the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is concerned, I do not find any material on records to accept the appellants' plea that

appellant No. 3 was not responsible for rash and negligent driving of the Jeep in question as the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 in

this respect, based additionally on the findings of the Court of enquiry held by appellant Nos. 1 & 2 into the accident holding appellant No. 3

responsible for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question, does not need interference. The findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are,

accordingly, affirmed.

So far as the appellants' plea that the compensation awarded to the respondent was excessive is concerned, regard needs to be had to the

following facts for consideration thereof.

According to the claimant's statement, he was working as private tutor after his retirement as teacher. Because of the accident he suffered

severe injuries rendering him permanently disabled as a result whereof he was unable to sit, squat or comfortably do tuitions to earn his living, as he

had been doing before the accident.

The certificate issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu indicates his medical condition, after the accident, as follows:

He is more than one year old case of fracture intertrochanteric (Lt) & fracture shaft of femure (Lt) with fracture tibial Platue (Rt), managed by

CRIF with DHS of I/T fracture (Lt) and ORIF with D.C.P. of (Lt) shaft of femur fracture & fracture tibial Platueu conservatively. At present

patient is having pain in hips & knees of both lower limbs and with restriction of range of Motion of (Lt) knee, (Lt) Hip and (Rt) knee. He is

physically handicapped with permanent disability of Both lower limbs amounting to 35%.

The appellants have not produced any evidence to rebut the above facts and the evidence led by the claimant in support thereof.

Based on the claimant's evidence and treating the claimant's monthly income at Rs. 5000/-, the annual loss caused to him because of his suffering

35% permanent disability has been assessed as Rs. 20,400 (1700 X 12). Rs. 96,000 has been awarded for loss of future income, Rs. 1,33,320 as

compensation for medical expenditure, Rs. 9000/- for special diet, Rs. 9000 for transport charges, Rs. 6000 for boarding/lodging during his stay at

Amritsar, where he had gone for medical treatment, Rs. 13,900 for removal of plates, Rs. 30,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 80,000 for loss of

amenities and pleasures of life.

Looking to the nature of the injuries suffered by the respondent after his retirement from Government service, disabling him to sit and squat

comfortably for long time to do tuitions, the percentage of permanent disability caused to him by the accident reducing his earning capacity, besides

aggravation, by the accident, of otherwise uncomfortable life of persons in the old age, in the Indian society, which has not been able to provide

security schemes for the old, weak and infirm persons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respondent for the injuries received in the

accident does not in any way, appear excessive, barring, however, the claim of Rs. 80,000/- allowed for loss of amenities and pleasures of life,

which is not supported by any reasons.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 indicating

broadly the general damages which may be awarded in case of disability in non-fatal accidents, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- is considered just and

proper compensation to the respondent for loss of amenities and pleasures of life because of the disability caused to him in the accident.

Appellants' learned counsel's plea that the Tribunal had erred in awarding interest on loss of future income, too is found well founded, in that, in

view of the settled legal position interest on loss of future income may not be permissible for its grant.

The finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 2, therefore, needs to be modified reducing the compensation awarded for loss of amenities and

pleasures of life, to the claimant, to Rs. 60,000/-.

For all what has been said above, the Award of the Tribunal needs to be modified as Award for Rs. 3,57,220/- as against Rs. 3,77,220/- as

allowed by the Tribunal.

This Appeal is, therefore, partly allowed modifying the Tribunal's Award as Award for Rs. 3,57,220/-. The respondent is held entitled to

interest on the awarded amount at the rate allowed by the Tribunal except on compensation for Loss of amenities and pleasures of life.

The Amount deposited by the appellants in the Registry shall be paid to the claimant by a Payees Account Cheque.

Rest of the amount payable by the appellants to the respondent in terms of the modified award shall be deposited in this Court within a period

of six weeks, for its payment to the respondent.