Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 162 (JK)

Mohan Singh v. Ajit Singh

2002-05-16

S.K.GUPTA, T.S.DOABIA

body2002
Per S.K.Gupta, J: 1. We have heard Mr. B.D. Sundan, learned advocate for the appellant, as well as Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned advocate for respondent-3, in extenso. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated: 14-02-2001 passed by learned Single Judge in CIMA No. 135/1993. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge partially allowed the appeal and, as a consequence, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 75.000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 1.50 lacs with 12% interest on the awarded amount. 2. On 14-08-1991, Mohan Singh. injured Appellant, was travelling in Bus No. JKQ-670. and when reached Garigarh, collided with Truck No. 9575 and caused an accident,"as a result of which, the claimant/appellant sustained 70% of permanent disability of his right arm and total disability of 45%. The accident, according to the claimant/appellant, took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The offending truck stood insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at the time of the accident. A claim petition, however, came to be preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant/appellant for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him against the respondents. 3. The Insurance Company, however, by putting appearance admitted insurance of the vehicle with their Company on the date of the accident and their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The Trial Court after going through the record and recording evidence awarded Rs. 75,000/- as compensation payable with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition to be satisfied by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. The learned Single Judge, however in CIMA modified the judgment to the extent of enhanced of the award from Rs. 75,000/- to 1.50 lacs. The claimant/appellant being still not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded assailed its correctness before us in this Letters Patent Appeal. The claimant/appellant has sustained fracture/dislocation of the right elbow and for which surgery was performed. Dr. Vijay Sabharwal issued certificate with regard to permanent disability of the right elbow of the claimant on account of its stiffness and assessed that the right arm disabled permanently at about 70%, while total disability given as 45%. The claimant/appellant was 13 years of age at the time of the accident. Dr. Vijay Sabharwal issued certificate with regard to permanent disability of the right elbow of the claimant on account of its stiffness and assessed that the right arm disabled permanently at about 70%, while total disability given as 45%. The claimant/appellant was 13 years of age at the time of the accident. He came to be admitted in the hospital on 14-08-1991 and after the operation stood discharged on 28-08-1991. 4. Mr. B. D. Sundan, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the enhanced amount awarded by the learned Single Judge is inadequate in view of the permanent disability of the right elbow suffered by the claimant and his tender age. His further contention is that no amount was awarded with regard to the medical expenses incurred by the claimant on his treatment. What are the factors to be taken into conconsideration while estimating and assessing the compensation payable to a victim of an accident having suffered injuries have been dealt with in detail by the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1995 ACJ 366 and reads as under: "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 usually incurred and which are capable to 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 damage may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of matters of life which my include a variety of matters, i.e. on account of injury the claimant my 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/ 5. It is not disputed that because of the accident the claimant/appellant had become handicapped on account of stiffness of the right elbow. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant. He has become life long handicapped. It is not disputed that because of the accident the claimant/appellant had become handicapped on account of stiffness of the right elbow. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant. He has become life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by the Courts that whatever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate because it is impossible to equate the money with the human suffering or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. Although the injured cannot be compensated for the loss he has suffered and agony undergone due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident, but he can be compensated for the cost of treatment, loss of comforts of life, future loss of income, pain and suffering. In the case of Ward Vs. James. (1995) 1 All ER563. it was said: "Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his lost years", you can. however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened span, that is. during his expected "years of survival. You can compensate him for his loss earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to the brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet judges and juries have to do the best they can and give him what they thinks is fair. No wonder they find it well-nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The judges have worked out a pattern and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money." 6. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant, if any. have to betake into account including his age. The judges have worked out a pattern and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money." 6. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant, if any. have to betake 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. It is not disputed that the injured claimant was admitted in SMGS hospital on 14-08-1991 where he was operated upon and discharged on 28-08-1991 with an advice to attend OPD for follow up. Nothing has been shown and reflected with regard to the expenses on medical treatment thereafter nor is so gatherable from the statement of Dr. Vijay Sabharwal. Who proved the medical certificate issued by him with regard to the nature of injuries to the extent of disability suffered by the claimant. The injured was. however, re-admitted on 16-12-1992 in SMGS hospital for removing of steel pin and discharged on 24-12-1992. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for permanent disability and loss of future amenities, for pain and suffering and for future loss of income at Rs. 75.000/- was enhanced by the learned Single Judge under different heads, vi/. Rs. 30.000/- for pain, suffering and shock, Rs. 40,000/- for permanent disability, disfigurement and loss of future amenities of life and Rs. 80,000/ - for future loss of income, totalling to Rs. 1.50 lacs awarded as compensation with 12% interest on the said amount. The amount of compensation enhanced and awarded by learned Single Judge is manifestly adequate to provide all requirements for rest of his life. The appellant, has not. therefore, succeeded in carving out and projecting any grounds whatsoever for further enhancement of the compensation in respect of the permanent disability suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in the accident. The contention raised by Mr. Sundan, learned appellants advocate, for further enhancement of compensation, when both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages have been taken care of by the learned Single Judge at the lime of enhancement of the compensation, does not hold good. The contention raised by Mr. Sundan, learned appellants advocate, for further enhancement of compensation, when both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages have been taken care of by the learned Single Judge at the lime of enhancement of the compensation, does not hold good. In this view of the matter, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, so as to invite our interference in appeal. In the result, the appeal possessing no merit, is hereby dismissed.