Amrit Lal vs Mohinder Singh & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1659 Del

           * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      FAO NO. 449/99

                       Judgment reserved on: 20.2.2008
%                      Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009


Amrit Lal                                ...... Appellants
                       Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate

                                   versus


Mohinder Singh & Ors.                 ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

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

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 of compensation passed

by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 25.6.99 for

enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a total

amount of Rs. 84,708/- 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. On 3.5.94 at about 2 p.m, the petitioner Amrit Lal was hit by a

truck bearing registration number DLL 4853 which was being driven

rashly and negligently and at a very high speed by the driver respondent

no.1. As a result of this impact, the petitioner received injuries.

4. A claim petition was filed on 14.09.94 and an award was passed on

25.6.99. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way

of the present appeal.

5. Sh.O.P Mannie counsel for the appellant claimant claims

enhancement through this appeal. The counsel urged that the award

passed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and insufficient looking at

the circumstances of the case. He assailed the said judgment of Learned

Tribunal firstly, on the ground that the tribunal erred in assessing the

income of the claimant appellant at Rs.1382/- PM stating that the same

should have been Rs. 1500/-p.m. Based on this, it is further contended

that the loss of income should also be enhanced, accordingly. The

counsel shows his discontent for not awarding any amount towards

mental pain & suffering and averred that it should have been

Rs.50,000/-. He also showed his discontent for not awarding any amount

for loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities besides loss of marriage

prospectus. The counsel further contended that the Ld. Tribunal has

erred in applying multiplier of 14 only in assessing the compensation on

account of disability suffered by the appellant. It is further contended

that permanent disability has been assessed at 30% while it is to the

extent of 40%. Further the counsel pleaded that the Tribunal erred in

awarding an interest of 9% pa only from 14.7.98 instead of 18% pa.

from the date of filling of the petition.

6. I have heard Sh. O.P Mannie, counsel for the Appellant and

Sh.Kanwal Chaudhary, counsel for the Respondent.

7. In a plethora of cases the 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."

8. In the instant case the tribunal has awarded Rs. 69,652/80/- on

account of disability, Rs.11056/- for salary of 8 months, Rs.3000/- for

expenses towards medicines; Rs. 1000/- for conveyance.

9. On perusal of the award, it becomes manifest that the appellant

had placed on record various bills which comes to a total of Rs. 3000/-.

The appellant had also placed on record medical bills, Ex.P14 to to

Ex.P21, issued by different medical stores. I do not find any infirmity in

the order in this regard and the same is not interfered with.

10. As regards conveyance expenses, nothing has been brought on

record. The appellant suffered crush injury on left foot. The tribunal after

taking notice of this fact and in the absence of any cogent evidence

awarded Rs.1000/- for conveyance expenses. Keeping in view the injury

suffered by the appellant, the compensation under this head is enhanced

to Rs.5000/-.

11. As regards special diet expenses, nothing was brought on record

by the appellant to prove the expenses incurred by him towards special

diet. The tribunal did not take notice of the fact that since the appellant

sustained serious crush injury on left foot, he must have also consumed

protein-rich/special diet for his early recovery. I therefore, award a sum

of Rs.10000/- towards special diet expenses.

12. As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal has not awarded

any amount to the appellant. The appellant sustained crush injury of left

foot. In such circumstance, I feel that the compensation towards mental

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

13. As regards the compensation towards permanent disability & loss of

future earning, I feel that the tribunal has not erred in assessing the

income of the insured. The income of Rs.1500/- could not be proved by

the appellant. Therefore the Ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the income

on the basis of the minimum wages of Rs.1382/- p.m. The disability has

also been taken rightly as 30% by the tribunal in this case. By taking the

said disability, the loss of income comes to Rs. 414.60 p.m or Rs.4975.20

p.a. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14. The age of the

injured/appellant is stated to be 20 years. At the age of 20 the

appropriate multiplier is of 16. The amount comes to Rs.79,603/-

(4975.20 x 16). Therefore, after considering all these factors, the

compensation towards disability is awarded at Rs. 79,603/- to the

appellant.

14. 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.5000/-.

15. As regards loss of earnings, no proof regarding income of the

appellant was brought on record. The tribunal has taken the income as

per the minimum wages i.e. Rs.1382/- p.m and awarded loss of salary for

eight months to the tune of Rs.11,056/-.I do not find any infirmity in the

order in this regard and the same is not interfered with.

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 18% p.a. From the day of filing of the petitioner till

realisation, 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, change of economy,

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. The Tribunal in its

order has given justifiable reasons for awarding the interest from

14.7.98. There is no justification to interfere in the same.

17. In view of the foregoing, Rs.3000/- is awarded for expenses towards

treatment; Rs.10,000/- for special diet; Rs.5000/- for conveyance

expenses; Rs.11,056/- for loss of wages; Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities

and enjoyment of life & Rs.79,603/- for permanent disability and Rs.

25,000/- for pain and sufferings.

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

to Rs.1,38,659/- from Rs.84,708/80 along with interest on differential

amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition in this

Court till realisation of the award and the same shall be paid to the

appellant by the respondents as directed by the tribunal and within 30

days of this order.

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

      April 27, 2009                               KAILASH GAMBHIR, J