Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 123 (HP)

HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SHIVRAM

1998-07-16

D.RAJU, KAMLESH SHARMA

body1998
JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This appeal at the instance of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (H.R.T.C for short) and their Regional Manager, Dehra is directed against the award dated 31.10.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, whereby an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded to the respondent claimant as compensation, besides interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition, that is, 30.10.1987. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.4.1987, the respondent claimant was travelling in Bus No. HIK2010 belonging to the H.R.T.C. which met with an accident near Danoghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, as a result of which the driver of the bus, namely, Om Parkash, died on the spot and the respondent claimant suffered fracture of his right arm and also multiple injuries. He filed claim petition which was tried and allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan. On the basis of the evidence on record that the respondent claimant was a permanent employee of the Irrigation and Public Health Department where he was working as a Peon, got salary for the entire period during which he remained indisposed due to the injuries received by him and had also got his medical expenses reimbursed, he has not been awarded any compensation against pecuniary damages suffered by him. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - keeping in view the fact that the respondent had suffered permanent disability of his right arm to the extent of 52% and he was 43 years of age. This amount has been awarded as a global figure without bifurcating it into different head of loss of enjoyment of amenities of life and inability to lead normal life in view of the permanent physical impairment of the right arm, etc. etc. 3. Now, the H.R.T.C. in this appeal has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent on the ground that in the facts and circumstances on record, it is on the higher side and is not just and proper. So far the findings on issue No. 1 are concerned that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ill fated bus, these have not been successfully assailed by the appellant. So far the findings on issue No. 1 are concerned that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ill fated bus, these have not been successfully assailed by the appellant. As per the medical evidence on record, the respondent has suffered permanent disability of the right arm to the extent of 52%, as per the Certificate Ex. P.W-1/A given by Dr. Thakur (P.W-1), the then Associate Professor, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. It is further certified by the doctor that due to permanent disability, the petitioner has fallen into the category of physically handicapped. The respondent who appeared as P.W-3 has though stated that he has suffered other injuries besides fracture of his right arm, has not uttered a word as to what kind of injuries these were and what treatment he had received for those injuries. It is also stated by him that he could not get promotion as he was not able to clear English paper due to the accident. But this statement is also vague as he has not explained in English paper of which examination he had appeared. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the respondent being 5th pass would remain as a Peon and due to the permanent disability suffered by him, his future chances of promotion have not been adversely affected. So far the submission of the respondent that due to the permanent disability of the right arm he has not been able to do agricultural work is concerned, he has not substantiated it by giving particulars of the agricultural land where he was working before the accident had taken place. Further, there is nothing on the record to show that the respondent had remained admitted in the hospital after the accident and he might have been discharged after getting his right arm plastered. In fact, no detail of his suffering as a result of fracture of right arm and injuries received by him has been given to enable this Court to assess the duration and extent of pain and suffering borne by him. Therefore, we are of the view that the global figure of Rs. 50,000/- given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is on the higher side and global figure of Rs. Therefore, we are of the view that the global figure of Rs. 50,000/- given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is on the higher side and global figure of Rs. 35,000/- will be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent has cited judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court in Shri Brestu Ram v. Shri Anant Ram and others, 1989 (2) Sim. L.C. 298, and of Gujarat High Court in Mohan-bhai Gemabhai v. Balubhai Savjibhai and others, 1994 ACJ 260, in support of his submission that the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is just and proper. The general principles of awarding just compensation to the injured victim of the accident as stated in these judgments are well known. The quantum of compensation awarded in these judgment is on the facts of these cases which are distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand, as discussed above. Therefore, these judgments are not of much assistance of the learned Counsel for the respondent insofar as determination of quantum of compensation in the present case is concerned. 5. We find substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that irrespective of the fact that neither any appeal nor Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent, this Court can grant interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 9% in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh and others, 1990 ACJ 777. In Para 6 of the judgment, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have categorically held that: "... The question of award of interest is dependent on the claim being allowed. Should the claim, be not allowed, the question of grant of interest would not arise, and if awardable, it it in addition to the amount of compensation. The Court or Tribunal, in these circumstances, should determine, in the first instance, claim for compensation and in the event of its being allowed can further exercise the discretion to grant simple interest in terms thereof, but as an additive to the amount of compensation. The Court or Tribunal, in these circumstances, should determine, in the first instance, claim for compensation and in the event of its being allowed can further exercise the discretion to grant simple interest in terms thereof, but as an additive to the amount of compensation. So the addition of interest to the compensation, by judicial discretion, is sequential in the eye of law and no claim in that regard in our view, specifically need be laid in so many words in the claim petition. The grant of interest, in our view, is not dependent on any pleading in that regard and can even be orally asked if the contingency arises...". 6. Therefore, we have no hesitation to entertain and allow the oral request of the learned Counsel for the respondent that interest at the rate of 12% per annum may be awarded to the respondent from the date of the application, that is, 30.10.1987 to the date of payment of the amount of compensation awarded to him. By now it is well settled that interest at the rate of 12% per annum is just and proper. 7. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent that amount of compensation awarded to the respondent is determined at Rs. 35,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/-. Further, the respondent will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the appellant from the date of the petition to the date of deposit. For the period subsequent to the date of deposit into this Court of the compensation, the respondent claimant will be entitled to whatever interest that has accrued in his fixed deposit on the compensation awarded to him in this appeal. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.