* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.421/2000
Judgment reserved on: 19.03.2008
% Judgment delivered on: 6.4.2009
Surinder Kumar Kansal ......... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashok Popli, Adv.
versus
Nadar Khan & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
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 29.5.2000 for
enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded a total
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 1 of 11
amount of Rs.2,70,000/- with an interest @ 12% PA for the injuries
caused to the claimant appellant in the motor accident.
2. The brief conspectus of facts is as under:
3. On 19.12.93 the appellant was going on his two wheeler scooter
bearing registration no. DL 4SJ 8547 with one Sh. Sham Singh on the
pillion. When he reached at round about of Taj Hotel, a car bearing
registration no. DL-17-1347 came at a fast speed, which was being
driven by Respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner on the
wrong side and hit the scooter of the appellant with a force. As a
result, appellant fell down and suffered grievous injuries leading to
amputation of left leg below knee.
4. A claim petition was filed on 30.5.94 and an award was made on
29.5.2000. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by
way of the present appeal.
5. Sh. Ashok Popli counsel for the appellant 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
awarding Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering which is too low in
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 2 of 11
view of the fact that the appellant remained under active treatment
from 19.12.94 to 28.9.95 and even thereafter. The counsel also
showed his discontent to the amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal towards special diet. It is also stated that no compensation
has been granted towards conveyance though the appellant attended
the OPD during active treatment. It is stated that no compensation
towards future treatment has been awarded by the Tribunal, whereas
appellant has to take regular treatment due to use of artificial limb.
Further, the counsel stated that Ld. Tribunal erred in not awarding any
compensation for repair/replacement of the artificial limb. The
counsel further submitted during the course of arguments that
appellant filed bills of Rs.6000/- incurred on account of repair of the
artificial limb, which Ld. Tribunal has not considered. The counsel
further submitted that Ld. Tribunal erred in not awarding any
compensation for further operation as it has now been advised by the
doctor that there is non-union of lower end of femur for which
operation is required and the appellant has to incur Rs.40,000/- on
operation and medicines. It is also stated that Ld. Tribunal has erred in
observing that the appellant being Engineer in DVB will not suffer any
loss on account of injuries as it does not affect his employability while
in service till the age of 60 years. Further, the counsel stated that a
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 3 of 11
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- ought to have been awarded for the injury,
disability, discomforts, inconvenience , loss of longevity of life and for
reduction in quality of life by use of artificial limb. The counsel further
stated that Ld. Tribunal has erred in directing that out of the total
award 90% of the award be deposited in a nationalized bank for a
period of 15 years. Further the counsel pleaded that the counsel erred
in awarding an interest of 12% pa instead of 18% pa.
6. Per contra, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa and Sh. Pradeep Gaur counsel
for the respondent insurance company contended that the tribunal
passed a just and fair award on the basis of the documents proved by
the appellant and therefore, no interference is required in the same.
7. I have heard the counsel for the parties 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
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 4 of 11
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 has awarded Rs. 80,000/- for
expenses towards medicines; Rs. 10,000/- for special diet; Rs. 30,000/-
for mental pain and sufferings; Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of permanent
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 5 of 11
disability to the extent of 40% and Rs. 53,600/- on account of loss of
earnings.
10. On perusal of the award, it is manifest that the appellant
remained admitted in AIIMS from 19/12/1993 till 26/1/1994 as per the
discharge slip PW3/1. But still he continued getting treatment as an out
patient, which is proved vide OPD cards Ex. Pw3/2 to PW3/4. PW3/5,
discharge slip proved that he also took treatment at Ganga Ram
hospital. Ex. PW3/6 and Pw3/7 proved that he also took treatment at
Orthonova Hospital. The appellant further deposed as PW3 that for
consultation regarding artificial limb for his amputated leg he sought
consultation from Dr. Sethi of Jaipur and same is proved vide Ex. PW3/8
and Pw3/9. Further Pw3/11 to PW3/25 are the tickets vide which it is
proved that he visited Jaipur for consultation. He had placed on record
various bills Ex. PW3/27 to 30 and Pw3/32 to 56, medical bills, to prove
medical expenses and expenses on purchase of artificial limb. As
regards medical expenses, the tribunal took cognizance of the fact that
the appellant suffered fracture on the thigh and left hand and later on
23/12/1994 his leg was amputated and awarded Rs. 80,000/- even
though the appellant could not prove that he had incurred Rs. 80,000/-
towards medical expenses. The tribunal has already been generous
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 6 of 11
and I do not find any infirmity in the order in this regard, therefore, the
same is not interfered with.
11. As regards conveyance expenses, the appellant deposed as PW3
that for consultation regarding artificial limb for his amputated leg he
sought consultation from Dr. Sethi of Jaipur and same is proved vide
Ex. PW3/8 and Pw3/9. Further Pw3/11 to PW3/25 are the tickets vide
which it was proved that he visited Jaipur for consultation. As
mentioned above, the tribunal awarded the said expenses under the
head of medical expenses. Thus the same has already been awarded
to the appellant by the tribunal. I do not find any infirmity in the order
in this regard and the same is not interfered with.
12. As regards special diet expenses, although nothing was brought
on record by the appellant to prove the expenses incurred by him
towards special diet but still the tribunal took notice of the fact that
since the appellant sustained serious injuries and his leg was also
amputated and thus he must have also consumed protein-rich/special
diet for his early recovery and awarded Rs. 10,000/- for special diet
expenses. I do not find any infirmity in the order in this regard and the
same is not interfered with.
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 7 of 11
13. As regards mental pain & suffering, the tribunal has awarded Rs.
30,000/- to the appellant. The appellant sustained fracture of thigh and
left hand and later the leg was amputated. In such circumstance, I feel
that the compensation towards mental pain & suffering should be
enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-.
14. As regards the compensation towards permanent disability, the
tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant. Considering the facts
of the case and also considering that the appellant could not prove
that he is facing any problem in the job as a DESU Inspector, I feel that
the tribunal has already been quite generous. Therefore, I do not feel
that any enhancement is required in this regard.
15. As regards loss of amenities, resulting from the defendant’s
negligence, which affects the injured person’s ability to participate in
and derive pleasure from the normal activities of daily life and the
individual’s inability to pursue his talents, recreational interests,
hobbies or avocations. 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. 50,000/-.
16. As regards the issue of interest that the rate of interest of 12%
p.a. awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same should
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 8 of 11
be enhanced to 15% p.a., I feel that the rate of interest awarded by the
tribunal is just and un/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, 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 @ 12% pa by the tribunal and the same is not interfered with.
17. As regards the contention that the tribunal erred in not awarding
compensation towards future medical expenses and expenses towards
repair of artificial limb, nothing has been brought on record to prove
the same. But considering that the appellant is completely dependant
on the said artificial limb and said artificial limb being a machine can
require repairmen, I feel that awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under the
said head would be just and fair.
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 9 of 11
18. As regards the issue that the tribunal deposited 90% of the award
amount in the nationalized bank, I feel that the same does not suffer
from infirmity. In Lilaben Udesing Gohel vs. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. – 1996 ACJ 673 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down
broad guidelines which the Claims Tribunal should follow while
disposing of the claim applications arising under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 to scotch complaints of misapplication of compensation
money and that as per those guidelines the compensation money
should be invested in a nationalised bank as a fixed deposit and the
interest thereon should be paid directly to the claimant or his guardian,
as the case may be. Therein, the Apex Court also held that in personal
injury cases if treatment is necessary the Claims Tribunal on being
satisfied about the same may after recording reasons for such
satisfaction direct the Insurance Company to pay such amount to the
claimant as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment.
This permission should be granted strictly after verifying the necessity
of medical expenses. Therefore, the appellant can always seek
withdrawal of the said deposited amount upon proof of exigency.
Therefore, no interference is made in the award on this count.
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 10 of 11
19. In view of the above discussion, Rs. 80,000/- is awarded for
expenses towards medicines; Rs. 10,000/- for special diet; Rs. 50,000/-
for mental pain and sufferings; Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities
of life; Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of permanent disability to the extent
of 40%; Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs. 53,600/-
on account of loss of earnings.
20. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is
enhanced to Rs. 3,68,600/- from Rs. 2,70,000/- along with interest @
7.5% per annum, on the enhanced compensation from the date of
institution of the present petition till realisation of the award and the
same should be paid to the appellant by the respondent no.3.
21. With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.
6.4.2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
FAO No. 421/2000 Page 11 of 11
