JUDGMENT
Bhawani Singh, J.
1. These appeals F.A.O. (MVA) No. 26 of 1982, State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Chand Krishan Hazari and Anr., FAO (MVA) No. 29 of 1982, Chand Krishan Hazari v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, FAO(MVA) No. 30 of 1982, Indu Hazari v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, and FAO(MVA) No. 34 of 1982, State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors v. Indu Hazari and Anr. arise out of the same accident and the common award. The facts, evidence and the principles of law being common, they are being taken up for decision together by a common judgment.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Shri Chand Krishan Hazari travelling by car No. DLK 2795 on 4.7.1970 at about 1 pm along with his wife, Indu Hazari and other members of the family, left Manali for Delhi; met with an accident with truck No. HIM- 3280, owned by the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Public Works Department), coming from opposite direction, driven by Om Prakash; it collided with the right side of the car. The collision was that serious that the car was pushed back by about 15 feet. The result of the accident was that Shri Chand Krishan Hazari got number of serious multiple fractures, besides number of other injuries, on his person. His wife, Shrimati Indu hazari, also sustained minor injuries. The injured were removed to a hospital at Manali where they got treatment for a few days and then they were taken to New Delhi where Chand Krishan Hazari was admitted as an indoor patient at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He remained admitted for many months and even after the treatment he complained his inability to walk long distances and pains to himself due to these injuries.
3. The couple filed petitions for compensation against the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and claimed Rupees One lakh (Chand Krishan Hazari) and rupees fifty thousand (Smt. Indu Hazari). Those claims were resisted by the respondents and it was alleged that the accident was the result of the negligence of the car driver which was, in fact, being driven by Shri Chand Krisshan Hazari.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether respondents 1 to 4 are not liable for any negligent tortuous aces of the respondent No. 5, OPR 1 to 4.
2. Whether on 4.7.70 on Kullu-Manali road between Katrain and Manali accident of truck No. HIM-3280, with car No. DLK-2795 took place as a result of negligence of respondent No. 5, as alleged ? OPP
3. If issue No. 2 is found for the petitioner, to what compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom ? OPP
4. Relief.
5. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the car driver and the petition was dismissed. The matter came in appeal in this Court and by a decision dated July 15,1981, the learned Chief Justice set aside the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 and held that the accident was not due to the negligence of the claimants; rather the truck driver was responsible for the same. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to proceed further in the matter, naturally, towards the assessment of the compensation.
6. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- – Rs. 35,000/- to Chand Krishan Hazari and Rs. 5,000/- to Smt. Indu Hazari — with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the award. The parties feel aggrieved by this award, therefore, they challenge the same by these appeals.
7. Shri M.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, contends that the award of compensation both towards the personal injuries as well as towards the medical expenses is on the higher side and in the case of medical expenses it is urged that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs. 10,000/- on this account as the receipts produced were only to the extent of Rs. 945.30 and Rs. 4,060.40 respectively. The contention towards the personal injuries was that the claimant, Chand Krishan Hazari did not suffer monetarily as no deductions of any sort were made by his employer during the time he remained away from his service. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Indu Hazari, the contention is that the award of Rs. 5,000/- to her for shock was arbitrary, unreasonable and without any evidence to support the same.
8. On the other hand, the case of Shri Chand Krishan Hazari is that in view of the medical evidence on the record, it was clearly established that the claimant had received number of fractures of various bones including legs and right arm and there is permanent disability to the extent of 40 per cent rendering him incapable of walking long distances, carrying weights and performing sitting duties besides affecting his efficiency despite intensive, proper and prompt treatment in one of the best hospitals in the country. It is also averred that the effect of the accident was persisting even after 12 years of the same and the Tribunal had committed grave error in not awarding rupees one lakh as compensation claimed by him in the circumstances of this case. He claims enhanced compensation towards pain and suffering, lack of full enjoyment of life. Claim for allowing interest from the date of the application has also been made.
9. Smt. Indu Hazari also complains that the compensation allowed to her is too meagre looking to the sufferings she had to undergo due to this accident. Claim for interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition has also been made. I proceed to deal with the respective cases of the parties by referring to the evidence on record to determine whether the claims of the parties are justifiable and, if so, in which cases and to what extent.
FAO (MVA) No. 26 of 1982State of HP and Ors. v. .Chand Kishan Hazari an Anr.
and
FAO(MVA) No. 29 of 1982 Chand Kishan Hazari v. State of H.P. and Ors.
10. Shri Chand Kishan Hazari has sustained multiple serious injuries. His left hip joint was dislocated and there was sciatic nerve injury. His right leg tibia also got fractured. His right arm and the humerus shaft were also injured. There were multiple fractures and his nose was also fractured, besides sustaining other minor injuries. Number of medical experts from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, who treated the claimant, have been examined and they had, in detail described not only the injuries, the treatment they gave but also the pain and sufferings of the claimant besides the future repercussions on his body, health and efficiency to work. He remained under treatment at this Institute for a great length of time as said by the witnesses appearing from this Institute. According to this evidence, his efficiency has been reduced by 40 per cent and was likely to decrease with the passage of time. Although the claimant has left the Institute, still he was not fully cured.
11. At the time of the accident, the claimant was employed with Escorts Ltd., Faridabad, and was earning a salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month and was holding quite a high and responsible assignment. The claimant has stated that he did not suffer due to his absence from his service so far as his salary was concerned. He got his emoluments for this period and had joined assignment. He states that he had spent an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 11,000/- on his treatment. The Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 10,000/-towards medical treatment. The State presses for the reduction of this amount being higher than the amount assessable on the basis of the documents produced by the claimant. It is true that the documents, in total, do not make out the claim for Rs. 10,000/-but looking to the nature of the injuries, the type of the treatment and the period of the treatment, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be considered to be excessive and unreasonable as contended by the State. Therefore, there is no reason to reduce the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under this head.
12. Now, coming to the question of payment of compensation for personal injuries, as already discussed above, the claimant suffered a number of serious injuries and underwent prolonged treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. He was subjected to surgical operations also.
13. The claimant is a person holding a high and respectable assignment. He was earning a salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month. He had potential to earn more in future but due to the accident and its consequences on his physical state, obviously he cannot have that spirit and tamper to work more to attain bigger heights. The question is how to determine compensation in such a case ? There is not cut and dry principle. The problem has to be approached keeping in view with the facts and circumstances of the case. Help may be sought from judicial principles relevant for the purpose.
14. In Mitchell v. Mullholland (1972) 1 PB 65. Edmond Davis, LJ, stated the methodology:
A satisfactory method of determining compensation is by arriving at a multiplicant and a multiplier. Adjustment in these will have to be made, owing to a variety of factors, viz., the probability of future increase or decrease in earnings, contingencies of life, incidence of inflation and taxation….
In Thomas v. British Railways Board, 1977 ACJ 222 CA, England Scarman, LJ., observed:
…the greatest element of damage in a case such as this is the pain, the suffering and the loss of the ordinary pleasures and convenience associated with healthy and mobile limbs. All the court can do is to award such a sum as will enable the plaintiff to acquire some material possessions or to develop a life-style which , will offset to some extent her terrible disability.
15. In more recent case, Birkett v. Hayes 1983 ACJ 697 CA England, the position has been stated:
There is nothing to guide us but the feeling of what is fair…. The judge has to award Compensation for the past and also for the future pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The future that lies ahead, beyond the date of trial, is often of more consequences than the past. The Judge awards a lumpsum at the date of trial to cover all.
16. In the words of Lord Morris in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1958-65, ACJ 504 HL, England:
Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as – giving reasonable compensation.
17. The law relating to award of compensation in Motor Accident Cases has developed enormously. It is a good sign. Judicial pronouncements, dealing with the subject, have greatly widened the horizons in this field. New principles have been enunciated to cover various concepts of damages. Enough care has been taken to see that the victim, in case of personal injuries, and the dependents in cases of fatal accidents, do not suffer incalculably due to the accident in question and decisions make an attempt to equate, as far as possible, the misery with the compensation awarded, though money compensation cannot be considered to be in any way equal to .the injuries sustained or the life lost. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages have to be carefully determined. Need for future care is more so that the victim or the dependents do not lead a miserable life.
18. In this case, the claimant did not suffer pecuniary disadvantage. However, he had to undergo lot of pain and suffering; there is loss of amenities of life, loss of happiness and enjoyment of life for future. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for shock and pain. In my opinion, this amount, appears to be quite meagre and deserves to be enhanced at least to double than this amount. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 25,000/-more is awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of happiness and enjoyment of life with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition to the date of the payment. The award is modified to this extent. The plea of the State for the reduction of the compensation amount is rejected. Accordingly, FAO No, 26 of 1982 is dismissed and FAO No. 29 of 1982 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In both the cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
FAO(MVA)No.30 of 1982 (Indu Hazari \&State of H.P. and Ors.)
and
FAO(MVA)No. 34 of 1982 State of H,P. and Ors. v. Indu Hazari and Anr.
19. I have perused the record in this case to know the number and nature of injuries sustained by Smt. Indu Hazari. They are of very minor nature. The Tribunal has awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- to her on account of shock and suffering by her due to this accident. It is just compensation awarded by the Tribunal and calls for no interference.
20. She has claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 23.1.1971, the date of filing the claim petition. The Tribunal has awarded interest from the date of the award. This is part of the award appears to be wrong. Interest should have been awarded from the date of the petition. The award is modified to the extent that Shrimati Indu Hazari is awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of petition till payment. The result is, there is no merit in FAO No. 34 of the 1982 and the same is dismissed and FAO No. 30 of the 1982 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In both the cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs.