Ghansham S/O Shri Ghappi vs Jai Deep S/O Shri Jawahar Lal, ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 433 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an Award dated 30th September, 2002 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the MACT) in Suit No.191/2002 (Old No.945/88).

2.The Appellant suffered injuries in an accident on 15th May, 1988. According to the Appellant, he was about 28 years of age and a self-employed mason earning Rs.1,600/- per month. He was cycling home from work when a car driven in a rash and negligent manner hit him. As a result of the accident, he fractured his right arm. He was given treatment in DDU Hospital where his arm was plastered. Later, a rod was put in his right arm, which was later removed. The Appellant was an outdoor patient in Safdarjung Hospital for about a year where he underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by him. According to the Appellant, he was unable to do his work as a mason and was, therefore, not able to earn anything. Consequently, the Appellant was not able to adequately look after his wife, child and parents. To compound the problem, the Appellant says that he had to spend some money on his treatment and special diet etc.

3. The learned MACT concluded that the Appellant received the injury due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.1. This finding has not been challenged by any of the Respondents.

4. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the learned MACT found that when the rod was inserted in his arm, the Appellant was in hospital for one week and his right arm was in plaster for about 1-+ months thereafter. He was an outdoor patient for about a year when he was again operated upon and the rod was removed from his right arm. Although the evidence produced on record suggested that the Appellant had spent hardly about Rs.261/- towards medicines, the learned MACT awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- or purchase of medicines etc. It was held that the Appellant was entitled to some conveyance charges and special diet, although the evidence in this regard was quite vague. Nevertheless, the learned MACT awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- under this head.

5. With regard to the loss of income, the claim of the Appellant was that he was earning about Rs.60/- per day (about Rs.1800/- per month) but there was no evidence in this regard primarily because the Appellant was self-employed. The learned MACT found that the income claimed by the Appellant was slightly on the higher side and instead of computing his income at Rs.1,800/- per month, it was computed at Rs.1,500/- per month. I see no error in this regard and the figure of Rs.1,500/- per month would more or less equal the figure claimed by the Appellant if it is assumed that he did not work on Sundays. The loss of income, therefore, as assessed by the learned MACT seems to be quite in order.

6. Since it was mentioned that the Appellant was not able to work for about a year, the learned MACT assumed that he could not work for about ten months, apparently with the intention of rounding off the loss of income to Rs.15,000/-. Moreover, it cannot be that because of a fracture, the Appellant was totally incapacitated from work for one whole year; at best, he could not work for a major part of the period and during the remaining period, his efficiency would have decreased. In the absence of any clear-cut evidence, the conclusion of the learned MACT does not seem to be erroneous. Due to the pain and suffering caused to the Appellant because of the accident, the learned MACT resorted to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- in this regard.

7. On the above basis, the learned MACT computed the total compensation due to the Appellant at Rs.22,000/- payable by Respondent No.3, that is, the insurance company with whom the offending vehicle was insured. On this amount, the learned MACT awarded interest @ 6% per annum.

8. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the amount awarded to the Appellant is far too low. His efficiency was impaired and he should have been awarded a much higher sum. As seen from the facts mentioned above, the loss of income computed by the learned MACT was more or less equal to what was claimed by the Appellant. Instead of a loss of income of Rs.1,800/- per month, the learned MACT took the figure of Rs.1,500/- per month which is quite justifiable considering the fact that the Appellant was not holding a steady job and was self employed and working either on a daily wage basis or on a contract basis. There is no serious error committed by the learned MACT in this regard. The amount awarded towards pain and suffering is also as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and learned counsel for the Appellant can have no serious objection to this. The amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards medicines, conveyance and special diet is adequate considering that the Appellant did not produce any worthwhile evidence to show even this expenditure incurred by him.

9. However, with regard to the amount of interest, it seems to me that the learned MACT has erred in awarding interest @ 6% per annum. It is now well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and several decisions of this Court that interest ought to be awarded @ 9% per annum. To this extent, the Award of the learned MACT is set aside and it is held that the Appellant will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum awarded by the learned MACT.

10. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.