Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Lalita Parihar vs Sanjay Singh And 2 Ors. on 17 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No 1508 OF 2013
BETWEEN:-
SMT. LALITA PARIHAR
W/O LATE BASANTBIDWAN, AGED 42
YEARS, OCCUPATION NURSE, R/O SERVANT
QUARTERS, GOVT. HOSPITAL JAORA,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KUSHAGRA JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SANJAYSINGH S/O MOHANSINGH, AGED
32 YEARS, OCCUPATION DRIVER, R/O
MAHAVIRA TRANSPORT PVT LTD. C1/14,
SECOND FLOOR PRASHANT VIHAR,
ROHINI DELHI.
2. M/S MAHAVIRA TRANSPORT PVT. LTD.
THROUGH DIRECTOR
C1/14, SECOND FLOOR,
PRASHANT VIHAAR ROHINI
DELHI
3. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE FIRST FLOOR
THE FAMARS ICON, SURVEY NO. 28
AHEAD OF ACME BALLOT, BEFORE
DODAN KUNDI RING ROAD
BANGALORE (KARNATAKA) 560037
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI ANIL GOYAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.)
2
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal by claimant/appellant under section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act is arising out of award dated 1.4.2013 passed by First
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaora District Ratlam in
claim case no. 228 of 2011 on account of inadequacy of compensation
and seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not
in dispute and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are
also not in question. As per the findings of the Tribunal, it is a case of
imputation of the claimant Smt. Lalita Parihar. The claims tribunal
awarded total compensation of Rs. 46,360/-along with interest to the
claimant from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
3 Learned counsel for appellant submits that the claims tribunal has
committed grave error of law and facts in not properly appreciating the
material evidence available on record while awarding compensation of
Rs.46,360/-. It is submitted that claims tribunal committed grave error of
law and facts in holding that there is no loss of income and her future
prospects are not hampered. He further submitted that the claims tribunal
failed to take into account the pain and suffering and the mental agony
caused to the appellant as a result of loss of her hand just awarding
Rs.5,000/- and the tribunal also committed grave error in awarding the
amount under the head of diet and other heads. He submitted that no
amount in respect of artificial limb was awarded by the tribunal. Learned
counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex
court in the matter of Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company
Limited reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683. Hence prays for enhancement
of amount which is just and proper.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent/insurance
company contended that the claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the
compensation amount in the case which does not call for any
interference by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Apex court in case of Govind Yadav (supra) has observed that
inability of victim to lead normal life and enjoy amenities, pain and trau-
ma suffered by disabled victim and future handicaps and stigma is likely
to be suffered by him. In this case the Apex court has held that the com-
pensation used would include not only the expenses incurred for imme-
diate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future med-
ical treatment necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an
accident. In paras 11 and 13 it has been held as under:-
11. The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are
manifold. Some time they can be measured in terms of money but
most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is perma-
nently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and
care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial dis-
ablement, the term `compensation' used in section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act') would include not only the
expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount like-
ly to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a
particular injury or disability caused by an accident.
13. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited this
Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation un-
der the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the
Court of Appeal in Ward v. James Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th
Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed (R.D. Hattangadi case,
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 as-
sessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually in-
curred 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 or-
der 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 mate-
rial loss. So far 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 fu-
ture; (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 short-
ened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappoint-
ment, frustration and mental stress in life."
In the same case, the Court further observed (R.D. Hattangadi case,
SCC p. 557 para 12):
"12 In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to
fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves
some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount
of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all
the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective stan-
dards."
13. Considering the Apex court verdict and perusal of the award it is
found that the amount awarded by the tribunal in other pecuniary head
is on lower side. In the considered opinion of this court and considering
the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly age of the
claimant and her amputation of a limb, future prospects and future treat-
ment, it would be appropriate to enhance the amount by a sum of Rs.
2,50,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of filing of the application till its realization.
7. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein
above.
(HIRDESH)
J U D G E
BDJ
BHUNESHWAR DATT
2024.02.26 18:58:17
+05'30'
