Chattisgarh High Court
Arvind Kumar Sharma vs Roshanlal And Ors. on 14 June, 2005
Equivalent citations: I(2006)ACC656, 2007ACJ57
Bench: Chief Justice, S.K. Agnihotri
JUDGMENT A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 1.2.1994 of the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 52 of 1990.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant was working as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department in the State of Chhattisgarh. In the year 1990 he was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer of Bango Division of the Irrigation Department. On 7.6.1990 while he was going to Bilaspur by his official jeep having registration No. MPZ 7699 in connection with some official work, he met with an accident with bus having registration No. MP 26-0301 which was coming from the opposite direction. The said bus was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3. In the accident the left eye of appellant was completely damaged and appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 7,80,000. The claim was contested by insurance company, respondent No. 3 and Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 52,500.
3. Mr. Vimlesh Bajpayee, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is not in dispute that the appellant has completely lost his left eye and has suffered a permanent disability of 40 per cent as certified by the doctor. He further submitted that the appellant was only 30 years of age at the time of the accident and thus the appellant was entitled to not only pecuniary damages but also non-pecuniary damages on account of pain and suffering and on account of loss of amenity of the vision of the left eye. He cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , in which Apex Court allowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 towards claim for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 for loss of amenity. He submitted that in the present case the Tribunal has allowed only Rs. 25,000 towards loss of confidence and mental tension and only Rs. 25,000 for loss of one eye, besides a sum of Rs. 2,500 towards loss of salary for the period during which the appellant took leave on account of injury. Mr. B.D. Guru, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that appellant continued to work in the government department and has also got his due promotions in service and, therefore, was not entitled to any amount more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
4. In R.D. Hattangadi's case, 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that while fixing the amount of compensation for a victim of an accident the damages have to be separated as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The Apex Court has further explained in the said decision that pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money whereas the non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The Apex Court has further held that pecuniary damages may include the medical expenses incurred by the claimant, loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial and other material loss and non-pecuniary damages may include damages due to mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, damages/compensation for loss of amenities of life, loss of confidence, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental harassment.
5. In the present case it appears that the Tribunal has awarded pecuniary damages of Rs. 2,500 for loss of salary suffered by the appellant during the period of leave taken for the injury suffered by him in the accident as also non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 25,000 towards loss of confidence and mental condition and Rs. 25,000 for loss of one eye. So far as the pecuniary damages of Rs. 2,500 are concerned, we find that the appellant has not been able to prove any actual pecuniary loss other than the loss of salary of Rs. 2,500 and the counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that the medical expenses incurred by the appellant were reimbursed by the State Government as the appellant was employee of the State Government and the appellant also got due promotions in service and along with promotions the increased pay and allowances. Hence, the appellant may not be entitled to any further amount towards pecuniary damages.
6. But so far as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, we find that the non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 25,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 50,000 for the pain and suffering and loss of one eye of the appellant awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. In R.D. Hattangadi's case 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Supreme Court has held in para 17:
...When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. According to us, as the appellant was an advocate having good practice in different courts and as because of the accident he has been crippled and can move only on wheelchair, the High Court should have allowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of claim for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of loss of amenities of life....
It would be clear from the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court that when the compensation is awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of the victim have to be taken into account, including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered and the effect of accident on his future life. The Supreme Court has further observed that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that the different circumstances have to be taken into consideration. In the present case the appellant has completely lost his left eye. He was aged about 30 years at the time he suffered the aforesaid loss of one eye. He had about 30 years of active social life to live if not more. He is an Engineer in the Irrigation Department and was likely to move in official and social circles without one eye. Keeping these circumstances in mind, the loss that the appellant has suffered not only on account of pain and suffering but also on account of deprivation of one eye is to be assessed. Taking into account all these circumstances we are of the view that appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 for pain, suffering, mental and physical shock due to the injury caused to his left eye and Rs. 2,00,000 for loss of amenities of vision of one eye, loss of confidence, discomfort and hardship for the remaining period of his life.
7. In the result, we award a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 for non-pecuniary damages in addition to Rs. 2,500 towards pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. The amount of Rs. 3,02,500 (rupees three lakh two thousand and five hundred) as awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to be calculated w.e.f. the date of application before the Tribunal, less the amount already paid will be deposited with the Tribunal, within two months from today. Thereafter the Tribunal will direct the release of the amount so deposited in favour of the appellant.
8. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.