Rajinder Singh vs Narender Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1677 Del

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO No. 214/2002

                            Judgment reserved on: 9.4.2008
                            Judgment delivered on:27.4.2009

Rajinder Singh                                ..... Appellant.
                       Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Adv.



                       versus

Narender Singh & Ors.
                                    ..... Respondents
                       Through: Nemo

     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 02.01.02 for enhancement

of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.

13,010/- 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 7.8.98, at about 2.45 p.m, the claimant was hit by a bus bearing

registration no. UP 14D 7305 at Khichripur Bridge and sustained grievous

injury including fracture of frontal region. The said bus came from the side

of Ghaziabad and hit a car, thereafter it hit the claimant and then the

railing of Khichripur Bridge as well as a truck. He was admitted in

Safdarjung Hospital for treatment and remained under treatment till

10.8.98. The claimant suffered permanent disability which resulted in

adversely effecting the future quality of life of the claimant.

4. A claim petition was filed on 15.9.98 and an award was passed on

02.01.02. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of

the present appeal.

5. The appellant claimant claims enhancement through this appeal. Sh.

J.S.Kanwar 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. He assailed the said judgment of Learned

Tribunal firstly, on the ground that the tribunal has not awarded any

compensation towards conveyance, special diet and loss of amenities and

he has stated that Rs.10,000/- should have been awarded under the head

conveyance and Rs.10,000/- under the head special diet. The Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental pain & suffering but the

counsel shows his discontent to that as well and averred that it should have

been Rs. 50,000/-. For Loss of Amenities he also has sought a sum of

Rs.50,000/-.

6. Nobody has been appearing for the respondents.

7. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the award.

8. 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."

9. In the instant case the tribunal awarded Rs.3310/- for expenses

towards medicines and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. No amount

of compensation has been awarded towards conveyance, special diet and

loss of amenities.

10. On perusal of the award, it is manifest that the appellant placed on

record various bills, which comes to a total of Rs. 3,308.76. The appellant

also placed on record medical bills, Ex.P3 to Ex.P12, issued by various

medical stores for a sum of Rs.3308/76. As regards medical expenses, the

tribunal took cognizance of the fact that the appellant sustained head

injuries and awarded the expenses incurred by the claimant towards

medicines for a sum of Rs.3310/-. It is well settled that while examining the

question of damages for personal injury, it is axiomatic that pecuniary and non-

pecuniary heads of damages are required to be taken into account. In case of

pecuniary damages, loss of earning or earning capacity, medical, hospital and

nursing expenses, the loss of matrimonial prospects, if proved, are required to be

considered and the claimant is duty-bound to produce relevant materials, on the

basis of which, a determination could be made, as to what would be the best

compensation. But considering that the appellant sustained head injury in the

left frontal region and remained under treatment for 3 days and is still

suffering, and also suffered various wounds on the body even in the absence

of any proof that the appellant incurred expenses more than the amount awarded

by the tribunal, I feel that the compensation in this regard should be

enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-.

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

record. The appellant sustained head injury in the left frontal region and

remained under treatment for 3 days and is still suffering, and also suffered

various wounds on the body. The tribunal after taking notice of this fact and

in the absence of any cogent evidence did not award any amount towards

conveyance expenses. It is evident from the facts that claimant must have

spent some money on conveyance after accident for going to hospital,

which the tribunal did not consider. I therefore, award Rs.5,000/- towards

conveyance to the claimant.

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

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

and the tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head. The

appellant sustained head injury in the left frontal region and remained

under treatment for 3 days and is still suffering, and also suffered various

wounds on the body and also considering that the appellant at the time of

the accident was of 12 years of age and also considering that for early

recovery he must have spent some amount on protein rich diet, I therefore,

award a sum of Rs.5000/- towards special diet.

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

10,000/- to the appellant. The appellant sustained head injury in the left

frontal region and remained under treatment for 3 days and is still

suffering, and also suffered various wounds on the body. In such

circumstance, I feel that the compensation towards mental pain & suffering

should be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.

14. As regards the compensation towards permanent disability, I feel that

the tribunal has not erred in not awarding the same because no disability

certificate has been filed on record.

15. As regards loss of amenities, Compensation for loss of amenities of

resulting from the defendant's negligence, affects 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. Considering that the appellant sustained

injuries in his left frontal region and remained under treatment for 3 days

and is still suffering, 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.20,000/-.

16. Therefore, from the above discussion, Rs.5,000/- is awarded for

expenses towards medicines; Rs. 5,000/- for conveyance expenses; Rs.

5,000/- for special diet; Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and

Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings.

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

to Rs.55,000/- from Rs.13,010/- along with interest on the differential

amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till

realisation of the award and the same shall be paid to the appellant by the

respondent no. 3 as directed by the tribunal and within 30 days of this

order.

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

April 27, 2009                              KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.