Inderdeep Singh Uppal vs Sh Deepak Kumar & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1487 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO. No. 664/2002

                            Judgment reserved on: 04.02.2008

                            Judgment delivered on: 20.4.2009.



Inderdeep Singh Uppal                               ..... Appellant.
                               Through: Mr. D.D. Singh, Adv

                   versus

Sh. Deepak Kumar & Ors.               ..... Respondents
                              Through:Nemo



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
   in the Digest?                                                 No


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award of compensation

passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 26.8.2002

for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a

total amount of Rs.18,932/- with an interest @ 9% PA for the

injuries caused to the claimant appellant in the motor accident.

2. The brief conspectus of facts is as under:

3. That on 24.11.1998 at about 10.00 a.m. petitioner Achint Kaur

was getting ready to go on her scooter to Pragti Madan with her son

Inderdeep Singh when Maruti Van DL 4CC-7894 being driven in a

rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit against the

left arm of Achint Kuar and the handle of her scooter in the process

of over taking the scooter from left side. Due to impact both Achint

Kaur and Inderdeep Singh fell on the road. Left knee and leg of

Achint Kuar were crushed while Inderdeep Singh suffered fracture

shaft of left Tibia. Both were removed to nearby Kailash Nurshing

Home from where they were shifted to Ganga Ram Hospital and

were treated there.

4. A claim petition was filed on 15.1.99 and an award was

passed on 26.8.22. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is

claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh.D.D. Singh, counsel for the appellant claimant urged that

the award passed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and

insufficient looking at the circumstances of the case.

6. The Counsel urged that the amount of compensation granted

towards medical expenses is insufficient and sme should be

enhanced. He contended that an appropriate amount should

have been granted by the Tribunal towards the medical treatment

and expenses. The claimant appellant is not able to produce

medical bills to claim the stated amount, but he contended that

looking at the facts and circumstance of the case and the fact that

the claimant was treated for fracture of shaft of left tibia at

Gangaram Hospital, New Delhi, the learned Tribunal must have

considered awarding that amount. Enhancement is also claimed

towards conveyance on the ground that some reasonable amount

be awarded. The appellant has also sought awarding of amount

towards the special diet.

7. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental

pain & suffering but the counsel showed his discontent to that as

well and averred that it should have been Rs.50,000/-. Further the

counsel pleaded that the counsel erred in awarding an interest of

9% pa instead of12% pa.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the award.

9. 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 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."

10. In the instant case the tribunal has awarded Rs.,3932/- for

expenses towards medicines and Rs. 15,000/- for mental pain and

sufferings. The tribunal has not granted any amount towards

special diet and special diet expenses.

11. On perusal of the award, it is manifest that the appellant had

placed on record various bills Ex PW 7/1, PW 7/7, PW 7/16 to 22,

which comes to a total of Rs. 3932.30. The appellant could not

prove that he had incurred expenses more than Rs.3932.30

towards medical expenses and, therefore, Tribunal awarded the

same amount as duly proved as compensation. I do not find any

infirmity in the order in this regard and the same is not interfered

with.

12. As regards conveyance expenses, nothing has been brought

on record. The appellant suffered simple injuries and coumpound

fracture. I feel that the tribunal after taking notice of this fact ought

to have awarded Rs. 2,500/- for conveyance expenses.

13. As regards special diet expenses, although nothing was

brought on record by the appellant to prove the expenses incurred

by him towards special diet but still the tribunal ought to have

taken notice of the fact that since the appellant sustained injuries

and compound fracture thus he must have also consumed protein-

rich/special diet for his early recovery and should have awarded Rs.

2500/- for special diet expenses.

14. As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal has awarded

Rs. 15,000/- to the appellant. I do not feel that the same requires

any interference in the facts of the present case.

15. As regards loss of amenities, which results resulting from the

defendant's negligence, and affects injured person's ability to

participate in and derive pleasure from the normal activities of daily

life, and the individual's inability to pursue his talents, recreational

interests, hobbies or avocations. 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/-.

16. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 9%

p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same

should be enhanced to 12% 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 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 and taking

in to consideration relevant factors including inflation, 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 @

9% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.

17. In view of the foregoing, Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards loss

of amenities; Rs. 15,000/- towards mental pain and sufferings; Rs.

2,500/- towards conveyance expenses; Rs. 2,500/- towards special

diet and Rs. 3,932.30/- towards medical expenses.

18. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is

enhanced to Rs. 33,932/- from Rs. 18,932/- 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.

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

20.4.2009                              KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.