Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kiran Goyal vs Sub Divisional Engineer, Mechanical ... on 6 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: (2008)2PLR471
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill, Rakesh Kumar Jain
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. This is an appeal by the claimant/appellant against the award of the learned Single Judge dated February 27, 2001, whereby he has been awarded Rs. One lac with 12% interest per annum for the injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident.
2. The appellant/claimant was travelling in a car bearing registration No.DIC-317 on December 14,1987, when he reached near village Assalwas on National Highway No. 8, a truck bearing registration No.HNE.7315 driven rashly and negligently by its driver Madan Lal-respondent No. 4, suddenly took a turn towards right without giving any signal, as a result of which, the car crushed into the rear right side of the truck and the appellant received serious multiple injuries on both the legs, other parts of his body and his teeth were also broken. After the accident, he was given first aid at Civil, Hospital, Bawal, from where he was shifted to North Delhi Nursing Home, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Rewari claiming an amount of Rs. 6 lacs as compensation.
3. On notice, the respondents put in appearance and filed two written statements, i.e. one by respondent Nos. l, 2 and 3 and another by respondent No. 5 & 6 Factum of accident was admitted, however, negligence was denied. The appellant also filed rejoinder and reiterated the stand taken in the claim petition.
4. On January 16,1990, the Tribunal framed following issues:
1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HNE-7315 or of Car No.DIC-317, or of both? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and from whom? OPP
3. Relief:
5. The appellant appeared as PW1 and tendered into evidence medical certificate and other related documents, whereas on behalf of the respondents, Madan Lal-respondent No. 4, driver of the offending truck appeared as RW1.
6. The Tribunal vide its award dated April 18,1991, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the appellant and against the respondents holding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. On issue No. 2, which pertains to assessment of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000A with 12% interest per annum.
7. Dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, appellant came up in the first appeal before this Court.
8. Vide its award, dated February 27,2001, the, learned Single Judge assessed the compensation as Rs. 50,000/- on account of permanent disability, Rs. 25,000/- towards 'pains and sufferings and agony, Rs. 15,000/- towards medicines and Rs. 10,000/- for future loss of income.
Thus, a total compensation of Rs. One lac was assessed with 12% interest per annum.
9. Still not satisfied with the aforesaid amount, the appellant has now come up in this Letters Patent Appeal and has claimed that he should be awarded compensation as claimed by him in the claim petition.
10. Mr. Ajay Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in ignoring the document Ex. P-18, the disability certificate given by Dental Surgeon showing permanent disability to the tune of 70% to 90% on the ground that the same has been obtained from a private doctor. He has further argued that it has also not been taken into consideration that before the accident the injured claimant was running a plastic industry having monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- and was paying Rs. 19,000/- as income tax per year. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded even with respect to the accepted disability certificate Ex.P-31 was inadequate and should have been awarded for every 1% disability. He has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. and submitted that while fixing an amount of compensation to a victim of accident the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary and non pecuniary. Learned counsel has also cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Piara Singh and Ors. v. Satpal Kumar and Ors. (2007-2)146 P.L.R. 143 where in the case of injury, injured/claimant who had disability of 45% was granted Rs. 2,000/- for 1% permanent disability. He has further argued that the appellant should also be awarded Rs. 2,000/- for 1% for admitted disability certificate vide Ex.P-31.
11. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the amount of compensation has been made exactly double by the learned Single Judge i.e. from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is adequate and reasonable and there is no scope for further enhancement of the same.
12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused the record.
13. In the cited case of R.D. Hattangadi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that in the case of accident, damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary and special and held as under:
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 up to the date of trial; (in) 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. oh account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.
14. So far as the above authority is concerned, yarned Single Judge has already assessed the compensation separately for both pecuniary and non pecuniary damages as the compensation has been awarded under separate heads i.e. permanent disability and pain and suffering, medicines and future loss of income and we do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation. So far as the disability certificate Ex.P-18 is concerned, it does not inspire any confidence having been obtained from a private doctor, though the other treatment is taken from the government hospital.
15. However, the compensation which has been awarded for admitted permanent disability needs to be enhanced and for that, we are inclined to follow the decision of Division Bench of this Court referred to above where Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded for 1% disability to the injured. On that count, the compensation in respect of permanent disability which is' awarded vide Ex.P31 as 55%, the compensation is thus, assessed @ Rs. 2,000/- for every 1% disability to the tune of Rs.
1,10,000/-.
16. Resultantly, we allow this appeal and award the compensation in respect of permanent disability from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,10,000/-. Thus, total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- over and above the compensation already awarded to the appellant, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.