Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anoopsingh vs Indersingh And Ors. on 7 January, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1(1986)ACC396
JUDGMENT K.L. Shrivastava, J.
1. This ordor shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1983 (Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation v. Anoopsingh and Ors.) which is also against the award dated 6-8-1982 made by the III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Indore in Claim Case No. 16 of 1979.
2. It is not in dispute that on 26-9-1978, at place between Bicholi and Manpur, District Indore, on the A.B. Road, there was a collision between the passenger bus No. CPH belonging to the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and the truck No. MPE 9069 which belonged to the respondent Indersingh. The accident had occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles and they were responsible for it in equal measure. Shankar was driving the bus at the relevant time and Jasbir was driving the accident truck. As a result of the accident, in addition to the bus driver Shankar, Nandlal Nigam, Ramchandra and Mahesh Kumar who were passengers in the bus had also died. Anoop Singh, another passenger of the bus had sustained several injuries as a result of the said accident. The accident vehicles were damaged.
3. At the relevant time the truck was insured with the New India Insurance Co. Indore.
4. Anoopsingh filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (for short 'the Act') on 16-1-1979 for compensation impleading the Corporation and the owner, driver and the insurer of the accident truck as opposite parties. It was stated that he is aged 52 years and is Circle Inspector in the Excise Department of the State of M.P. Due to the accident, the sustained fracture of the right mandible resulting in disfiguration of the face and loss of four teeth of the upper jaw. He also suffered fracture of both his legs and also of his right hand. Stating that he has suffered permanent disability, the compensation was claimed as under:
Rs. P.
1. Loss of pay 15,000 00
2. Expenses incurred in medical treatment. 15,000.00
3. Loss of future earning due to permanent disability. 40,000.00
4. Amount spent for the attendance wife and son. 5,000.00
5. For disfiguration of face. 50,00.00
6. For loss of four teeth. 10,000 00
7. For loss of future amenities. 15,000.00
8. For loss of expectations of life. 5,000.00
9. General damages. 10,000.00
----------
1,35,000.00 The Claim was resisted.
5. The learned Tribunal held that there was 35% disability. Rs. 10,000/- towards expenditure incurred in medical treatment and special diet were allowed. A sum of Rs. 1,800/- was granted towards attendance of his wife and son. Finding that the applicant bad to remain on leave, a sum of Rs. 4,365/- was also allowed. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was granted for permanent disfiguration of his face, for loss of teeth for loss of pleasures of conjugal life and for loss of amenities of life. A further sum of Rs. 10,000/- was allowed towards general damages. Thus a total sum of Rs. 36,430/- was awarded with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation.
6. Aggrieved by the award, Anoopsingh preferred the Misc. Appeal No. 298 of 1982 for enhancement of compensation under different heads. In Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1983 the Corporation's contention in that the grant of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical treatment and special diet is not sustainable on the evidence on record.
7. The points cropping up for consideration may conveniently be crystallised in the following term:
(i) Whether the amount of compensation awarded is too in adequate so as to require interference ?
(ii) Whether the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses of medical treatment and special diet ?
8. under Section 110-B of the Act, the Tribunal is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. As pointed out in Santosh Kumar's case 1982 MPWN 403 this has to be done after considering various factors. As the determination of compensation by any precise mathematical calculation is not possible in the every nature of things, it has rightly been remarked that in determination of compensation arthmetic is a good servant but a bad master. In determining the amount of compensation due regard must, however, he had to comparable cases so that there is some measure of predictability about the awards.
9. It is well settled that unless the amount awarded is too inadequate or too excessive no interference in appeal is called for.
10. In a case of personal injury damages which are awarded fall under the following two heads:
(a) for pecuniary loss, and
(b) for non-pecuniary loss, Full compensation for pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant has to be awarded subject to rules of remoteness and mitigation. As regards non-pecuniary loss or general damages, items of loss and injury for which compensation is claimed have to be ascertained and then the same has to be quantified in terms of money. Personal injuries sustained may be simple or grave and in addition to pain and hardship may occasion loss of pleasures of life. Damages are awarded in respect of pain and suffering already undergone and likely to be undergone in future, in respect of loss of the amenities of life and in respect of the reduction in the expectation of life. Assessment of damages for pain and suffering has necessarily to depend upon a reasonable view of the case having regard to all the circumstances. It has also to be remembered that damages awarded in an action for torts are compensatory and not punitive. As regards damages to be awarded for the loss of pleasures of life, the personal circumstances of the plaintiff must form the background of the assessment. In this connection reference may usefully be made to the Division Bench decision in Deepti Tiwari v. Banwarilal . Note has also to be taken of the fall in the purchasing power of money and also of the fact that the claimant can claim compensation but once.
11. Now we proceed to determine the question applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
12. The learned Tribunal has rightly held in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the award that looking to the work he is doing and the business of transport intended to be done by the applicant after his retirement, it cannot be successfully urged that the disability he has suffered would in any way entail loss of income to him. We find that the Tribunal was right in not allowing any compensation for loss of earning consequent to the disability.
13. It is true that the applicant had to remain on leave for 412 days including the period of commuted leave. As rightly held by the Tribunal, he could have encasehed his four month's leave and was on half pay leave for 30 days. Compensation on this count has rightly been calculated at Rs. 4,365/-.
14. Care has also to be taken to ensure that there is no duplication of damages and in this view, we find that the learned Tribunal has applied correct principles and the claimant cannot successfully make any grievance as to the amount of compensation.
15. This brings us to the appeal by the Corporation.
16. By production of some bills and vouchers, the claimant proved an expenditure of Rs. 3,069.75. He has stated that he could not produce bills and vouchers due to their non-availability. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the claimant had taken treatment in two private nursing homes at Indore and was under treatment for a considerable long period. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we find that the learned Tribunal was right in allowing Rs. 10,000/- towards expenditure incurred in medical treatment and special diet.
17. In the ultimate analysis we find that the impugned award is proper and no interference at all is called for.
18. In the result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs as incurred.