Delhi High Court
Up State Road Transport Corporation vs Santosh Kumar & Anr on 19 July, 2024
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~A-27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of order : 19th July, 2024
+ MAC. APP. 139/2018 & CM APPL. 4407/2018, 29512/2018
UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shadab Khan and Mr. R.P.
Singh, Advocates.
versus
SANTOSH KUMAR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 20th
August, 2017 (hereinafter as the 'impugned order') passed by the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North-West District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi (hereinafter as the 'Tribunal') in MAC No. 450446 / 2016 (Old No.
262/15), titled as 'Santosh Kumar vs. Jitender Kumar'.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mr. Santosh Kumar, respondent
no. 1/claimant, was travelling to Haridwar-Rishikesh on 20th January,
2009. A bus bearing registration no. UP-11T-2568 (hereinafter as the
'offending vehicle'), which was registered with the appellant and was
being driven by Mr. Jitender Kumar (hereinafter as the 'respondent no.
2') was travelling from Rishikesh to Delhi. At Shahpur, Mansurpur depot,
Muzzafarnagar, the offending vehicle, which was allegedly being driven
in a rash and negligent manner, hit the respondent no. 1, who sustained
grievous injuries.
3. The respondent no. 1 was taken to the hospital, wherein he
underwent medical treatment for the grievous injuries. The respondent
no. 1 was also given a disability certificate, thereby, holding that he has
sustained 50% permanent disability.
4. An FIR bearing no. 40/09 was registered with the PS Mansurpur,
Muzzaffarnagar against the respondent no. 1 at the instance of the
claimant's brother.
5. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1/claimant filed a Claim Petition
bearing no. 262/15 before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation of
Rs. 40,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 20th
September, 2017, held that the respondent no. 2 was driving the offending
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thereby, causing grievous injuries
to the respondent no. 1 basing its reasoning on the testimonies of
witnesses and evidences at hand. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.11,44,000/-
was granted to the respondent no. 1/claimant as compensation, directed to
be recovered from the appellant.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the appellant has filed
the instant appeal before this Court seeking setting aside of the same.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that the learned Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order against the
appellant as the respondent no. 2 is not liable for the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle.
8. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the
respondent no. 1 was solely negligent in sustaining grievous injuries as he
lost control while standing on the central patri of the road, thereby,
coming in contact with the offending vehicle and that the respondent no.
2 is not liable for rash and negligent driving.
9. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the
testimony of the respondent no. 2 while passing the impugned order
against the appellant, which clearly establishes that the negligence of the
respondent no. 1 standing in the middle of the road resulted in causing
him grievous injuries.
10. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not examined
any independent eyewitnesses to the case as the impugned order has been
passed based on the testimonies of an interested eyewitness, thereby,
leading to fabrication of the case.
11. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding
excessive compensation of Rs. 11,44,000/- against the appellant as the
same is without evidence. It is further submitted that there is no cogent
evidence placed on record showcasing that the respondent no. 2 was not
driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, therefore,
the liability of the respondent no. 2 is against the settled position of law.
12. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the
instant appeal may be allowed, and impugned order be set aside.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 1 vehemently opposed the instant appeal submitting to the
effect that the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
14. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal was correct in considering
that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 2 in a
rash and negligent manner, causing grievous injuries to the respondent
no. 1, whereby 50% permanent disability has been incurred.
15. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal was right in relying on the
testimonies of PW-3 and PW-5, wherein the former is an eyewitness to
the case and the latter assessed the 50% disability of the respondent no. 1,
as it further corroborated the case of respondent no. 1 that the respondent
no. 2 was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
16. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a just and
reasonable compensation to the respondent no. 1 by placing reliance upon
the evidence on record with respect to the grievous injuries sustained by
the respondent no. 1 due to the negligence of the respondent no. 2.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
18. It is the case of the appellant that the learned Tribunal via its
impugned order failed to take into consideration that the respondent no. 1
was standing on the central patri of the road, when he lost his balance and
came in contact with the offending vehicle, leading to grievous injuries. It
is submitted that respondent no. 2 and appellant are not liable for rash and
negligent driving as the grievous injuries were sustained due to the sole
negligence of the respondent no. 1. It is further contended that the amount
of compensation has been wrongly awarded against the appellant at an
exorbitant interest @ 9%. Hence, it has been prayed that the impugned
order may be set aside.
19. In rival submissions, it is contended that the respondent no. 2 drove
the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thereby, hitting the
respondent no. 1, which caused grave injuries. It is submitted that the
respondent no. 1 suffered 50% permanent disability due to being hit by
the offending vehicle, being driven by the respondent no. 2. It is further
contended that the learned Tribunal was correct in granting the
compensation of Rs. 11,44,000/-. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may
be dismissed..
20. Therefore, the question for adjudication before this Court is
whether the learned Tribunal was correct in passing the impugned order
holding the appellant liable for rash and negligent driving and awarding
compensation to the respondent no. 1.
21. At the outset, this Court deems it imperative to peruse the findings
recorded by the learned Tribunal in its impugned order, the operative
portion of which is as under -
5. That, in order to establish his claim, the petitioner Sh.
Santosh Kumar examined himself and tendered his evidence
by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW4/X and also examined
PW-2, brother of the injured and also examined PW-3
Sukhram, father of injured and as an eye witness and also
examined PW-5 Dr. Minakshi who assess the disability as 50
% of the petitioner and relied upon the following
documents:-
S. Name of Documents Marked/Ex
No hibited as
1. The DL and RC of the Ex. PWl/1
2. Medical Bills of injured Ex. PW4/3
(colly)
3. DL, Pan Card, ITRs PW4/81 to
education certificates (colly)
of petitioner
4. Photocopy of RC of the PW4/107
Alto Car and DL of
petitioner
6. PW-1 Dr. D.K Goel, has deposed that he has brought the
treatment record of patient Santosh Kumar who was
admitted in their hospital on 20.01.2009. Copy of the same is
Ex. PWl/1, OSR (colly).
7. PW-5 Dr. Meenakshi Sidhar, Chair Person Disability
Board of Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi has
deposed that on dt. 02.05.2017, she alongwith Dr. Ranvir
Singh Solanki had examined the patient Santosh Kumar s/o
Sh. Sukh Ram. He was found to have 50 % permanent
physical disability and was found to have right hemiparesis.
She identify the signature of Dr. Ranvir Singh Solanki who
has signed disability certificate in my presence.
8. That, PW4 who is the petitioner/injured in the accident
examined himself and deposed and testified on the lines of
the claim made by the petitioner and has categorically
deposed that on dated 20.01.2009 at about 15:00 PM injured
was going to Haridwar-Rishikesh with his brother and other
family member by his own vehicle. On the way Mansurpur,
Distt. Muzaffarnagar, U.P and was hit by U.P State
Roadways Bus bearing no. UP-llT-2568 and he received
multiple grievous injuries on his head.
9. That, PW-2, Sh. Ram Goptal, brother of the
injured/petitioner has proved the FIR. PW-3 Sukh Ram,
father of the petitioner/injured has deposed that the accident
took place because of rash and negligent driving of R-1.
10. That the FIR No. 40/09, U/s 279/337/338 of I PC, PS
Mansurpur, Distt. Muzaffarnagar, U.P, was registered
against the driver of the offending bus bearing no. UP-llT-
2568 at the instance of PW-2 Sh. Ram Gopal and charge
sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C has been filed against the driver of
offending bus, who is facing trial before the court of Ld.
Judicial Magistrate, Distt. Muzaffarnagar, UP.
11. It has also been deposed by the petitioner/injured that he
was also admitted Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi and the injuries were grievous in nature.
12. It has also been deposed that the petitioner/injured was
10th pass at the time of accident and injured was a business
man and due to said injuries he could not work properly and
his date of birth is 1974 which is mentioned in Adhar Card
and the age of petitioner is 35 years.
13. The petitioner has also been able to show on record the
offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent
manner by the respondent no. 1 and in the matter titled as
"Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal"
reported at 2007 (5) SCO 428, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:-
"xxxxx On a careful understanding of the decision in Gujrat
Transport Corporation (supra) we cannot understand it as
having held that in all claims under the Act proof of
negligence as the basis of a claim is jettisoned by the scheme
of the Act. in the context of Sections 166 and 163A of the Act
of 1988, we are persuaded to think that the so called obiter
observations in Minu B. Mehta's case (supra) govern a claim
under Section 166 of the Act and they are inapplicable only
when a claim is made under Section 163A of the Act.
Obviously, it is for the claimant to choose under which
provision he should approach the Tribunal and if he chooses
to approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, we
cannot see why the principle stated in Minu B. Mehta's case
should not apply to him. We are, therefore, not in a position
to accept the argument of learned counsel for the
respondents that the observations in Minu B. Mehta's case
deserve to be ignored, xxxx"
14. For the aforesaid purpose, the testimony of
petitioner/injured as PW4 and PW-3 who was they eye
witness of the accident and PW-5 who has proved the
disability certificate is very material and inspire the
relevancy.
15. It is worth mentioning that the petitioner is required to
prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver
of the offending vehicle and standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not apply in the proceedings like the
present claim petition. Reliance is placed on Bimla Devi Vs.
HRTC (2009) 13 SC 530, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:
"xxxx It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof
of accident caused by a particular bus in a particular
manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The
claimants were merely to establish their case on the touch
stone of preponderance. The standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Xxxxx"
16. That, in view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in
view the material available on record and as discussed
above, it has been duly proved by way of preponderance of
probabilities that accident took place because of rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration no. UP-
llT-2568 being driven by its driver who is respondent no. 1
Sh. Jitender Kumar herein to which the petitioner/injured
sustained grievous injuries on his body. Therefore, issue no.
1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
17. That, since the petitioner has proved that the accident
took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the
respondent no. 1, therefore, he is entitled for the amount
spent by him in his treatment and also compensation on
other heads:
MEDICAL EXPENSES
18. That the petitioner/injured has testified that
petitioner/injured was admitted in the M Parkash Hospital,
Meerut, U.P on the day of the accident i.e. 20.01.2009 and
after five days was shifted to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital
where he was treated till 24.03.2009 and was remained bed
ridden and he has placed on record the medical bills of Rs.
2,63,000/-, Therefore, in these circumstances, I hereby
award a sum of Rs. 2,63,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Three
Thousand Only) towards medical expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
19. That, the petitioner/injured has deposed that he was
working as property dealer and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per
month but as per the ITR, filed by the petitioner is monthly
income is 11,676/- and the petitioner was bed ridden for
three months and must not been able to work for one year,
therefore, he is entitled compensation as under:-
11,676X12= 1,40,112/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand
One Hundrd and Tweleve Only). Therefore, in these facts
and circumstances, a sum of Rs. 1,40,112/- (Rupees One
Lakh Forty Thousand One Hundrd and Tweleve Only) is
hereby awarded as compensation under the head of loss of
income.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
20. That, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court, Section 160 of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribed the
Claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an
award determining the award compensation which appears
to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind
that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a
bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
21. That in the matter titled as " Helen C. Rebello Vs.
Maharashtra" reported at SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90, Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:-
"xxxxx The Court and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the
various factors and quantify the amount of compensation,
which should he just. What would he "just" compensation is
a vexed question. There can he no golden rule applicable to
all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb.
Measure of damages cannot he arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the
particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar
or special features, if any." xxxxx"
22. That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as
"Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal
bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has
held as under:-
"xxxxx It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in
terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of
serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident.
Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and
suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation
which may have some objective relation with the pain and
suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the
Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the
nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were
sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim,
confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
23. That, the petitioner has testified that he had suffered
grievous injuries on his head and has also placed on record
on the discharge summary as well as the treatment of the
doctors of different hospital and an FIR has been registered
in this regard against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is
proved that the petitioner/injured had suffered multiple and
grievous injuries on his head, he must have suffered mental
tension, hurt, pain and agony as there is 50% permanent
physical disability also, therefore, in these facts and
circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards pain and sufferings
to the petitioner/injured.
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
24. That, in the present claim petition, there are sufficient
material on record to establish that the petitioner/injured
had suffered multiple and grievous injuries on his head and
remained hospitalized for so many several days and was put
on liquid diet after her discharge from the hospital and
because of the injuries sustained in the road accident would
not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life at all,
during the period she remained hospitalized and even
afterwards, he would have been deprived of many general
amenities during that period, he remained under treatment
and it is very difficult to bear the pain in the younger age.
Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, I award a sum
of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards loss of
amenities of life.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET
25. That, the petitioner/injured must have taken special diet
and spent money for convenience charges. Therefore, in the
given facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs.
40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) on account of
conveyance charges and Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty
Thousand Only) on account of special diet.
Just Compensation on account of disability
26. That, the disability certificate, issued by the Medical
Board of Dr. Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi and
there is 50 % permanent disability and was found to have
right hemiparesis and because of the grievous injuries
sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident and
due to said disability, he is not able to work properly and the
counsel for the petitioner had argued that 50 % disability
may kindly be considered as functional disability. But this
argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is immaterial
and unsubstantiated in as much as the 50% permanent
disability cannot be considered as 50 % functional disability.
That, the injured is young age and he had suffered multiple
and grievous injuries on his head. Therefore, functional
disability is to be considered justifiably 25 % functional
disability and the just compensation is to be awarded on
account of 25% functional disability of the injured, that as
per the ITR the monthly income of the petitioner/injured at
the time of the accident was Rs. 11,676 per month and the
age of the age of the petitioner/injured was 35 years at the
time of the accident, therefore, multiplier of 16 would be
applicable and the compensation under this head is assessed
as 11,676X12X16X25 divided by 100= 5,60,448/-,
Therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,60,448/- (Rupees Five Lacs Sixty
Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight Only) is awarded
under this head.
The total compensation is assessed as under:-
22. Upon perusal of the above, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal,
in its impugned order, has placed reliance on the evidence placed on
record as well as the testimonies of the witnesses, wherein the testimony
of respondent no. 1/PW-4 was further supported by the eyewitness/PW-3
and concerned doctor/ PW-1. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has taken
due consideration of the disability certificate of 50% permanent
disability, which was proved by Dr. Meenakshi Sidhar/PW-5, who is the
Chair Person Disability Board of Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital,
Rohini, Delhi. The learned Tribunal has also assessed the impact of the
said disability on the occupation of the respondent no. 1 and therefore,
based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the learned
Tribunal held that the respondent no. 1 incurred several grievous injuries
due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the
respondent no. 2.
23. In light of the same, the learned Tribunal, awarded a compensation
of Rs. 11,44,000/- to the respondent no. 1, recoverable from the appellant
with an interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition. The
learned Tribunal relied on the documentary evidence filed on record such
as the medical bills, registered FIR, Income Tax Receipts of the claimant
and disability certificate, for computing the compensation award.
24. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned reasoning, the learned
Tribunal passed the impugned order in favor of the respondent no.1
holding that there is a clear case of negligence against the respondent
no. 2.
25. It is pertinent for this Court to firstly address the issue of
negligence and then address the issue of compensation awarded to the
respondent no. 1.
26. In view of this, it is pertinent to peruse the testimony of the
respondent no.1/PW-4, as per which it was testified that on 20th January,
2009, he along with his family members were travelling to Haridwar-
Rishikesh in his vehicle bearing registration no. DL-9-CM-0709 and that
he parked his car to the left side of the road, upon reaching Mansurpur,
Muzaffarnagar, to answer nature's call, when the offending vehicle hit the
respondent no. 1 due to being driven in a rash and negligent manner,
ultimately causing grievous injuries to the claimants before the learned
Tribunal.
27. It was testified by PW-3, who is the father of the respondent no. 1
that he was travelling along with the respondent no. 1 to Haridwar-
Rishikesh, when the offending vehicle hit the claimant, who parked the
car aside to attend a nature's call. It was further testified that the
respondent no. 1 suffered grievous injuries to the head due to the
negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. In his cross-examination, PW-3
reiterated that when the respondent no. 1 was coming towards the parked
car from the left side of the road, the offending vehicle hit him, causing
him grievous injuries. He was later taken to a Government Dispensary for
preliminary medical treatment for the injuries suffered, thereafter shifted
to another hospital for better treatment of the injuries. This testimony
further corroborated the testimony of PW-4. Moreover, PW-5 testified
that the respondent no. 1 has sustained 50% permanent disability, with
right hemiparesis, further proving the disability certificate of the
respondent no. 1. Therefore, it is the case of the respondent no. 1 that the
respondent no. 2 was negligent in driving the offending vehicle.
28. This Court has also examined the testimony of respondent no.
2/DW-1, wherein it was stated that the offending vehicle was being
driven in a normal speed, following the traffic rules and regulations,
when the respondent no. 1, who was standing on the central patri of the
road, lost balance and came in contact with the offending vehicle,
thereby, suffering minor injuries. It is the case of the appellant that it is
the sole negligence of the respondent no. 1 for incurring injuries and that
he was not driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
29. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no. 1 admitted
for the treatment of injuries and that the accident in question caused 50%
permanent disability which was also proved by the testimonies of PW-1
and PW-5 respectively.
30. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to state that the strict
principles of evidence are inapplicable to the claims filed under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the requirement of standard of proof is one of
'preponderance of probabilities', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
This principle has been reiterated in a plethora of cases, including
Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand, AIR 2011 SC 1504.
31. Therefore, upon perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses, and
placing reliance on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, this
Court is of the view that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner by the respondent no. 2, as not only did he not
notice the respondent no. 2, but also, hit him when he was at the left side
of the road, thereby establishing the negligence of the respondent no. 2.
Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant qua the
issue of negligence are rejected being devoid of any merits.
32. With respect to the issue of compensation awarded to respondent
no. 1, it is imperative for this Court to look at each head of the
compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
a. Medical expenses - The learned Tribunal, while assessing the
medical expenses, placed reliance on the medical bills produced by
the respondent no. 1, which amounted to Rs. 2,63,000/- and the
same has been awarded under this head.
b. Loss of income - Although respondent no. 1 claimed that his
monthly income was Rs. 15,000/-, the learned Tribunal has taken
consideration of the Income Tax Returns filed by the respondent
no. 1, which reflected that the respondent no. 1 was earning Rs.
11,676/- per month and therefore, granted Rs. 1,40,112/- for loss of
income for one year.
c. Pain and Suffering - While computing the compensation under this
head, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the facts and
circumstances of the case to arrive at the compensation, which is
Rs. 50,000/-.
d. Loss of amenities of life - The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs. 50,000/- based on the sufficient material on records.
e. Conveyance and Special Diet - A sum of Rs. 40,000/- each
towards convenience and special diet has been awarded due to the
grievous injuries incurred by the respondent no. 1, therefore, the
total sum of compensation under this head is Rs. 80,000/-
f. Just Compensation on account of Disability - Although the
respondent no. 1 pleaded to consider 50% of permanent disability
as functional disability, the learned Tribunal considered only 25%
as functional disability due to lack of material and substance on the
said plea. Therefore, computed the compensation under this head
based on the annual income, functional disability, age of the
respondent no. 1, wherein multiplier of 16 has been applied,
amounting to Rs. 5,60,448/-.
33. At this juncture, it is imperative to refer to the case of R.D.
Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1995 SC
755, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred to the different
kinds of compensation to be considered while giving relief to the
claimant. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder -
"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 is
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 upto the date of trial; (iii) other material
loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may
include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain
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."
34. Moreover, while determining the compensation to be awarded to
the claimant, the Court has to ensure that the same is just and reasonable
in accordance with the facts and circumstances, as observed in K. Suresh
vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., ( 2012 ) 12 SCC 274. The
relevant paragraph is as under -
"10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority,
while determining quantum of compensation, has to keep in
view the sufferings of the injured person which would
include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy
the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for
the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing
compensation the approach of the tribunal or a court has to
be broad based. Needless to say, it would involve some
guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude
or a precise formula to determine the quantum of
compensation. In determination of compensation the
fundamental criterion of "just compensation" should be
inhered."
35. The learned Tribunal has ensured that the respondent no. 1 was
awarded just and reasonable compensation based on the evidence on
record, considering different kinds of difficulties endured by the
respondent no. 1. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned
Tribunal computed the compensation in consonance with the principles
and observations laid down in R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India)
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (supra) and K. Suresh vs. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. & Anr., (supra).
36. Therefore, this Court has discussed the issues of negligence and
compensation hereinabove, wherein the respondent no. 2 is liable for his
rash and negligent conduct of driving the offending vehicle, thereby
causing grievous injuries to the respondent no. 1, and the appellants being
the owners of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation
amount of Rs.11,44,000/- to the respondent no. 1.
37. Taking the aforesaid observations, it is held that the appellant has
been unable to put forth any propositions in order to invite the
interference of this Court under its appellate jurisdiction. In light of the
same, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the
impugned order and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed being
devoid of any merits.
38. In view of the foregoing discussions of facts and law, the
impugned order dated 20th August, 2017 passed by the learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in
case bearing MAC No. 450446 / 2016 (Old No. 262/15) is upheld.
39. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed along with pending
applications, if any.
40. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JULY 19, 2024 JUDGE
NA/SM/RYP
