Shri Madan Gopal Goel vs Shri Vipin Kumar And Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 585 Del

JUDGMENT

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 27th March, 2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma, Delhi whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the appellant.

2. The factual scenario in nutshell is as follows:

The appellant, Sh. Madan Gopal Goel met with an accident on 16/3/1994. The appellant was of 36 years at the time of accident and was doing business as a wholesale dealer in electrical goods. He stopped his car at the crossing near Samachar Appartments as the traffic lights turned red but in the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. DIG-178 driven by Respondent No. 1, Sh. Vipin Kumar, in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came from behind and hit the two-wheeler scooter driven by the appellant. The scooter was dragged up to a considerable distance and left leg of the appellant got entangled in the rear tyre of the two-wheeler scooter; as a result the appellant sustained multiple fractures. The left leg of the appellant was crushed and on the following day, i.e., 17/3/1994, his left leg was amputated above knees resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 80%. He remained confined to bed for a long time and also suffered fracture in the right wrist; internal wounds in spinal chord and the entire rib-cage; muscle rupture above abdomen near liver and rib-cage and multiple bruises and lacerations all over the body.

3. The counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Sirish Kumar has assailed the impugned award dated 27/3/2000 on four grounds. The first ground rounding on the impugned award is that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding general damages at a meager amount of Rs. 75,000 in the circumstances of the case. The second ground lashed out is that the monthly income of the appellant has been taken as Rs. 1420 when the appellant claimant had proved his monthly income at Rs. 4000. The third ground of challenge is that the rate of interest @ 12% has been applied by the learned tribunal, which is on a lower side, in place of 18%. The fourth ground on which the present appeal is based is that the interest has been awarded to the appellant from 1/3/1996 and not from 12/9/1994, which is the date of filing of the claim petition and that the tribunal has grossly erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 3,09,187, which is on the lower side, towards compensation when the claimant appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 15,33,000 in his claims petition.

4. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon following judgments:

(1) Dr. Gop Ramchandani v. Onkar Singh ;

(2) R.D. Hattangdi v. Pest Control India Pvt. Ltd. ;

(3) New India Assurance Co. v. Dinesh Prasad ;

(4) Shashendra Lehri v. UNICEF ;

(5) Jitender Singh v. Islam ;

(6) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sirajuddin ;

(7) Bhagwan Singh Meena v. Jai Kishan Tiwari ;

(8) Radha Devi v. LIC and Ors. ;

(9) Mahesh Kaul v. Munshi Ramson and Ors. 136 (2007) DLT 460

(10) Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ramanand Devrao Hattangdi

5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents, Mr. D.K. Sharma has vehemently traversed the said contentions of counsel for the appellant. The counsel had oppugned all the contentions of counsel for the appellant and stated that the award made by the learned tribunal is correct and free from any blemishes. The counsel has relied on paragraphs 13, 14 and 16 of the impugned award, wherein it has been observed by the learned tribunal that the appellant had produced on record the notice issued to M/s Elemix Electric Co., of which the appellant is the proprietor, by the Income Tax Department, for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97 in order to prove his income of Rs. 4000 but he never brought anything on record to show that he paid the said amount of income tax as shown in the said notices of the Income Tax Department. The counsel also contended that in para 16 of the impugned award the learned tribunal has stated that the reason for granting interest w.e.f. 1/3/96 in place of 12/9/94 i.e. the date of filing of the petition is that the appellant took a long time around 11 dates to conclude his evidence.

6. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the records. I would take up the contentions of the counsel for the appellant ad seriatim. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant pertains to the non-pecuniary damages being on the lower side. 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 and fatal accidents cases should be on awarding 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 the 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 taken in to account. In this regard the Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197, has classified pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as under:

16. This Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. 9 laying the principles posited: (SCC p. - 556, para 9)

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.

7. In the appeal at hand general or non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 75,000 has been awarded to the appellant petitioner. On perusal of the judgments, viz. Mahesh Kaul v. Munshi Ramson and Ors. 136 (2007) DLT 460; Dr. Gop Ramchandani v. Onkar Singh ; Bhagwan Singh Meena v. Jai Kishan Tiwari ; Jitender Singh v. Islam ; R.D. Hattangdi v. Pest Control India Pvt. Ltd. and Shashendra Lehri v. UNICEF relied upon by the counsel for the appellant on the issue of enhancement of non-pecuniary damages, it is clear that the Apex Court and various High Courts have granted enhancement of non-pecuniary damages as high as Rs. 3,00,000 from as low as Rs. 50,000 where there is more than 50% permanent disability on account of amputation of limbs. In the case of Mahesh Kaul (supra) this Court has granted enhancement of non-pecuniary damages to Rs. 1,50,000 from Rs. 75,000/- even in case of 40% permanent disability. Compensation to be assessed for non-pecuniary damages is a vexed issue as hardly any objective criteria can be crystallized and it is bound to be subjective. In the instant case the appellant suffers from 80% permanent disability and hence I feel that it shall be proper to enhance the compensation from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 1,50,000. Hence, compensation to this extent is enhanced.

8. The second contention of the counsel for the appellant is that while determining the loss of dependence, the tribunal erred in determining income of the appellant at the time of accident on the basis of minimum wages when the appellant claimant had proved his monthly income at Rs. 4000. In this regard the thumb rule is that where there is no cogent evidence on record to prove the monthly income at the time of accident then the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act prevalent at the time of accident can be taken into consideration. In the present case the appellant had produced on record the notice issued to M/s Elemix Electric Co., of which the appellant is the proprietor, by the Income Tax Department, for the assessment years 1994-95 demanding tax on the income of Rs. 51866/- and in 1996-97 to pay income tax on Rs. 41409 in order to prove his income of Rs. 4000/- but the tribunal observed that he neither brought anything on record to show that he paid any amount on the said income as shown in the said notices of the Income Tax Department nor did he produce any other cogent evidence to prove his income at the time of accident. Mere bald assertions cannot help the appellant in this regard. It is no more res integra that in accident cases the Tribunals while assessing and quantifying compensation should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence and legal principles and it is equally settled that in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the income, aid of Minimum Wages Act can be taken to assess the income. I feel that the tribunal was right in taking recourse to Minimum Wages Act to calculate the income of the appellant. But, since the appellant is carrying on the business of electrical goods through a proprietorship concern on wholesale basis, hence, by taking the salary of the appellant as that of the unskilled person prevalent at that time, the tribunal has committed error and the tribunal should have assessed the income as that of a semi-skilled person. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that there is error in the award as regards the income of the appellant. However, it has been the consistent view of this Court that whenever aid of Minimum Wages Act is taken while computing income, then increase in minimum wages should also be considered. It is well settled that future prospects are not akin to increase in minimum wages. To neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, the minimum wages are increased from time to time. A perusal of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act show that to neutralize increase in inflation and cost of living, minimum wages virtually double after every 10 years. Thus, it could safely be assumed that income of the deceased would have doubled in the next 10 years.

9. Therefore, the tribunal erred in not considering increase in minimum wages, while assessing the income of the deceased and same should be considered while computing compensation. The third ground of challenge is that the rate of interest @ 12% has been applied by the learned tribunal, which is on a lower side; in place of that, 18% interest should be awarded. No fixed rate of interest has been mandated under Section 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 after taking into consideration relevant factors including inflation, change of economic policies, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, kind of injuries, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. suffered by the victim and should normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time i.e. the date of decision. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court has in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India(2003) 3 SCC 148 observed as under:

6. The question as to what should be the rate of interest, in the opinion of this Court, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time.

18. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same, as it is consequential in the eye of law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money, which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal or the High Court as indicated above.

10. On the basis of the above discussion, I am not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest @12% awarded by the Tribunal. The fourth ground on which the present appeal is based is that the interest has been awarded to the appellant from 1/3/1996 and not from 12/9/1994, which is the date of filing of the claim petition. The tribunal observed that the appellant took a long time around 11 dates to conclude his evidence. In cases of accidents the body is already wrecked and original positions cannot be restored, the courts should give technicalities a go bye and concentrate on fair play. The approach in awarding compensation has to be broadly based on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and technicalities in the decision-making should be avoided. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation. The Indian Parliament, being conscious of the magnitude of the plight of the victims of the accidents, has introduced several beneficial provisions to protect the interest of the claimants and to enable them to claim compensation from the owner or the insurance company in connection with the accident. I feel that by awarding interest from 1/3/1996 in place of 12/9/1994, which is the date of filing of the claim petition, the tribunal has caused further havoc in his life. I feel inclined to grant interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the claims petition i.e., 12.9.1994 till 1.3.1996.

11. Compensation cannot be granted on mere whims and fancies. Legislature and Courts have laid down proper formula and method to be followed in quantifying amount of compensation. I do not find any appealing reasoning to enhance the compensation any further.

12. On the basis of the above discussion after enhancement the total compensation comes out to Rs. 5,87,208/- from Rs. 3,10,000/- which shall be paid by the respondent No. 4 insurance company @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till 1.3.96 and @ 7.5% p.a. from 1.3.1996 till realisation. With these directions the present appeal is disposed of.