Nand Lal Sapra vs Dtc
2009 Latest Caselaw 1326 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       FAO No. 474/2003

                        Judgment reserved on: 15.2.2008
%                       Judgment delivered on: 13.4.2009



      Nand Lal Sapra               ...... Appellant
                        Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate.

                   versus


      DTC                        ..... Respondent
                        Through: None.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may       No
      be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?              No

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported         No
      in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 24th April

2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 1,11,000 along with interest @ 9% per

annum to the claimant.

2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

On 19th October 1992, at about 7:20 P.M., the appellant got

down from a bus at Barafkhana, Subzi Mandi bus stop to catch

another bus for going to Gulabi Bagh and in the meanwhile, one

DTC bus bearing license No. DBP 6281 driven rashly and in a

negligent manner hit the appellant on the footpath and crushed

his left leg under the back wheel of the bus. He was quickly

removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. Injured appellant's lower left

limb was amputated due to the crush injury. The injured/

appellant sustained 50% disability of the whole body as indicated

in the medical certificate. The appellant was working as a copy

holder/proof reader in Govt. of India Press, Mayapuri.

A claim petition was filed on 9th February 1993 and an

award was made on 24th April 2003. Aggrieved with the said

award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Bhupesh

Narula has challenged the said award of the Learned Tribunal on

the ground that the Tribunal erred in awarding a lumpsum

amount of Rs 1,11,000/- without any justification ignoring the

guidelines for computing the compensation payable to the

claimants as laid down by Apex Court and various High Courts.

The counsel urged that the injured appellant was working as a

government employee and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,994/-,

besides he was also earning from home tuitions to the tune of

Rs. 3,000/- per month. The counsel also pleaded that the

Learned tribunal should have taken Rs 5,994/- as the monthly

income of the injured and should have granted a future increase

on the same by doubling the amount to which a multiplier of 11

should have been applied as per the IInd schedule. Further he

contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the permanent

disability at 25% whereas, as per the disability certificate

granted to the injured appellant, he suffered disability of 50% of

whole body. Enhancement in compensation is also sought on

additional grounds like loss of future prospects, medical

expenses, and loss of earning. Enhancement in Non-pecuniary

damages are sought under the heads of mental shock, pain and

suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life.

Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the

award.

In 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

substantial, just and fair damages and not mere token amount.

In cases of personal injuries and fatal accidents the general

principle is that such sum of compensation should be awarded

which puts the injured or the claimants in case of the fatal

accidents matter, in the same position as they 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 required to be 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."

It is equally well settled that the multiplier method is the

best method for computing compensation in motor accident

matters.

In the instant case the tribunal awarded Rs. 42,000/- as

loss of income; Rs. 54,000 on account of permanent disability;

Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and sufferings and Rs. 5,000/-

towards conveyance; special diet etc.

As regards the compensation towards permanent

disability, I feel that the tribunal erred in awarding the same at

Rs. 54,000. The income of the appellant was duly proved at Rs.

2994/- p.m.as per the salary certificate, Ex.PW2/3. The appellant

met with the accident in the year 1993. The age of the appellant

at the time of the accident was 50 years and the 50% disability

of the appellant was duly proved on record vide Ex. PW2/5. This

case pertains to the year 1993 and at that time II schedule to the

Motor Vehicles Act was not brought on the statute books. The

said schedule came on the statute book in the year 1994 and

prior to 1994 the law of the land was as laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in 1994 SCC (Cri) 335, G.M., Kerala SRTC v.

Susamma Thomas. In the said judgment it was observed by the

Court that maximum multiplier of 16 could be applied by the

Courts, which after coming in to force of the II schedule has risen

to 18. Thus, the multiplier of 8 shall be applicable. Thus taking

the monthly income of Rs. 2994/- P.M. and disability to the

extent of 50% the compensation on account of permanent

disability shall come to Rs. 1,43,712/- after adopting the

multiplier of 8.

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.

50,000/-.

As regards loss of earnings, income of the appellant was

duly proved as Rs. 2994/- pm as per the salary certificate ex.

PW2/3 brought on record. The tribunal assessed notional income

of the appellant at Rs. 2994/- pm and awarded Rs. 42,000/-

towards loss of income for 14 months, from 20/10/1992 to

6/1/1994 as per the Ex. PW2/4, the period during which the

appellant could not work. I do not find any infirmity in the award

in this regard and the same is not interfered with on this

account.

As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal has

awarded Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant. The appellant sustained

grievous crush injuries in the aforesaid accident and as a result

his lower part of the left leg near the tow was amputated. In such

circumstance, I feel that the compensation towards mental pain

& suffering should be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-.

As regards compensation towards medical expenses, it

finds mention in the award that the counsel for the appellant had

himself stated before the tribunal that the appellant had claimed

his medical bills from the Government. Thus, the same is not

awarded.

As regards conveyance expenses, special diet expenses

etc. nothing has been brought on record by the appellant but still

the tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/-, which I feel is just and fair and

requires no interference.

Therefore, Rs.1,43,712/- is awarded towards 50%

permanent disability, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.

42,000/- towards loss of earnings for 14 months; Rs. 25,000/-

towards mental pain and sufferings, and Rs. 5,000/- towards

conveyance expenses, special diet etc..

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is

enhanced to Rs. 2,65,712/- from Rs. 1,11,000/- along with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the

petition till realisation of the award and the same should be paid

to the appellant by the respondent insurance company.

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

13.4.2009                              KAILASH GAMBHIR, J