IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO NO.706/02
Judgment reserved on:4.2.2008
Judgment deliveredon:4.5.2009
Manohar Lal . .....Appellant
Through Mr.OP Mannie, Adv
Versus
Pradeep Kumar & 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 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 28.8.02 for
enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a
FAO No. 706/2002 Page 1 of 8
total amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- 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 19.7.96 at about 7 p.m appellant Manohar Lal was going on
a scooter which was being driven by his friend Sh Chain Sukh and
when they reached near Sangam Cinema, RK Puram, New Delhi a
bus no. DL 1P 2934 came from behind in a rash and negligent
manner without caring for the traffic rules and hit the scooter. As a
result, both the occupants fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
4. A claim petition was filed on 8.10.98 and an award was passed
on 28.2.02. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed
by way of the present appeal.
5. Sh. OP 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 not
paying any compensation for reduction in earning capacity on
account of permanent disability to the extent of 44%. Ld. Counsel
claimed loss of leaves for nine months instead of four month. The
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental pain &
FAO No. 706/2002 Page 2 of 8
suffering but the counsel shows his discontent to that as well and
averred that it should have been Rs.25,000/-. For permanent
disablement also he sought enhancement from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.
1,00,000.It is further contended that Tribunal has erred in not
awarding compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life,
for frustration and for reduction of working capacity. Further the
counsel pleaded that the counsel erred in awarding an interest of
9% pa instead of 18% pa.
6. I have heard the counsel for the appellant Sh OP Mannie and
perused the record.
7. 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:
FAO No. 706/2002 Page 3 of 8
“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.26,676/- for
medical expenses; Rs.15,000/- for loss of leaves; Rs. 50,000/- for
disability suffered by the appellant; Rs.10,000/- for pain and
suffering and Rs.10,000/- for special diet and conveyance.
9. On perusal of the award, it is manifest that the appellant had
placed on record various bills Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/69 which are
amounting to Rs.26,676/-. It has been admitted by the appellant that
the amount of Rs.1,37,609/- i.e. Bill of Jassa Ram Hospital has been
reimbursed by his department. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the
FAO No. 706/2002 Page 4 of 8
amount of Rs.26,676/- towards medicines and the same is not
interfered with.
10. As regards conveyance expenses & special diet, nothing has
been brought on record. The appellant suffered fracture and 44%
disability in his body. The tribunal after taking notice of this fact and
in the absence of any cogent evidence awarded Rs. 10,000/- for
conveyance expenses and special diet. I enhance the same to
Rs.20,000/-.
11. As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal has awarded
Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant. The appellant sustained fractures and
44% disability. In such circumstance, I feel that the compensation
towards mental pain & suffering should be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.
12. As regards the compensation towards permanent disability, I
feel that the tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards disability. I do not find any infirmity in the said order in this
respect and the same is not interfered with.
13. 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
FAO No. 706/2002 Page 5 of 8
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 did not err in
not awarding the same since compensation towards disability and
loss of amenities is a common head under non-pecuniary damage.
14. As regards loss of leaves, the appellant has stated in his
testimony that he was on leave for about nine months. But he has
not examined any witness from his office in this respect nor
produced any record. The Tribunal has rightly awarded
compensation for four months to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. I do not
find any infirmity in the order and the same is not interfered with.
15. AS regard future loss in earning capacity due to permanent
disability, the petitioner has placed on record his salary slip showing
monthly salary as Rs.3774.85 or Rs.3775/- p.m rounded of to
Rs.4000/- p.m.The appellant suffered 44% disability as per the
certificate Ex.PW1/71. This disability is for a particular limb and I
presume it as 20% for the whole body. The loss of income per month
would be Rs.800/- p.m or Rs.9600/- p.a. The petitioner is age about
31 years at the time of accident. Therefore multiplier of 17 would be
appropriate. Applying the multiplier the amount comes to RS.
1,63,200/-. I award a sum of Rs.1,63,200/- to the appellant on this
account of future loss of earning capacity.
FAO No. 706/2002 Page 6 of 8
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., 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.
17. In view of the foregoing, Rs. 26676/- towards medicines;
Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance and special diet; Rs.20,000/- for
pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/- towards disability; Rs.15,000/- for
loss of leaves and Rs.1,63,200/- for future loss of earning capacity.
18. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 2,94,876/- from Rs.1,12,000/- along with interest
FAO No. 706/2002 Page 7 of 8
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 respondents as directed by the
tribunal within 30 days of this order.
19. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.
04th May, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
FAO No. 706/2002 Page 8 of 8