Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 213 (JK)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deep Raj

2004-07-22

S.K.GUPTA

body2004
Both these appeals, preferred against a common award dated 14.8.2002 and arising out of same accident, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, shall be disposed of by this order. 2. It appears that on 5.1.1998, Truck bearing registration No. JKN-7001, carrying labour in its body, being driven rashly and negligently when reached at Devika Bridge, the driver lost control over the steering as a result of which the truck fell into the river Devika and respondent Deep Raj was fortunate enough to have survived with only injuries whereas Ram Lal succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Claim petitions were filed, both by Deep Raj and dependents of deceased Ram Lal, claiming compensation, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together by the Tribunal and after recording evidence and hearing the parties the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 4,58,000/- as compensation under various heads to claimant Deep Raj whereas an amount of Rs. 4,31,232/- was awarded as compensation to the dependants of deceased Ram Lal, reduced by interim relief granted under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alongwith 9% interest in each case from the date of filing of the claim petitions. The appellant-insurance company, however, made applications under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking permission from the Tribunal to contest the claims on all grounds available to it. 3. The appellant has challenged the award in both the claim petitions on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive and the interest has been allowed even on future loss of earnings, which is not permissible under law. It is submitted that in Claim Petition titled Deep Raj v. Dev Raj and anr, the doctor has opined that claimant was having stiffness of left ankle and left knee which does not incapacitate him from doing any manual work but the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- on account of loss of future earnings, without any justification which is grossly excessive and is on higher side. The doctor, in his certificate, has clearly given 45% permanent disability of the claimant. According to the doctor, the claimant, with this disability, cannot walk properly and require a stick to support for the rest of his life as his leg has become thin and he will have difficulty in climbing stairs and boarding a bus. The doctor, in his certificate, has clearly given 45% permanent disability of the claimant. According to the doctor, the claimant, with this disability, cannot walk properly and require a stick to support for the rest of his life as his leg has become thin and he will have difficulty in climbing stairs and boarding a bus. This makes it abundantly clear that the claimant cannot pursue his usual evocation of labour to earn his livelihood. 4. It is significant to point out that there is no yardstick available to ascertain the damages in case of injuries suffered in a vehicular accident. Money can only provide the loss of earning, of which the claimant is deprived but cannot restore the physical frame which has been shattered in the accident, as is pointed out by the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Post Control (India)n Pvt. Ltd, 1995 ACJ 366, relied upon by the Tribunal. In case of injuries the Tribunal has to assess the pecuniary damages as also the special damages. So far as pecuniary damages are concerned, it relates to the expenses which the victim has actually incurred and in case of special damages or non-pecuniary damages, it includes pain and sufferings already suffered and likely to be suffered in future for loss of amenities of life and shortening of normal longevity of life due to the accident besides mental frustration, stress and strain. The claimant, Deep Raj, was 25 years of age at the time of accident and has been rendered physically incapacitated due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The Tribunal has assessed the future loss of income on the basis of monthly earnings of Rs. 3000/- and its 45% comes to Rs. 1350 and after deducting 1/3rd from this amount for the personal expenses of the claimant, the monthly loss to the claimant comes to Rs. 900/- and the annual loss thus comes to ( 900 X 12) Rs. 10,800/-. This amount has to be multiplied by an appropriate multiplier, looking to the age of the injured. The suitable multiplier in the age group of the claimant would be 15 in this case. So the compensation payable to the claimant, Deep Raj, on account of loss of future earnings is assessed at Rs. 10,800 X 15= Rs. 1,62,000/- to which the claimant is held entitled under the head, loss of future earnings. 5. The suitable multiplier in the age group of the claimant would be 15 in this case. So the compensation payable to the claimant, Deep Raj, on account of loss of future earnings is assessed at Rs. 10,800 X 15= Rs. 1,62,000/- to which the claimant is held entitled under the head, loss of future earnings. 5. The claimant remained admitted in hospital with effect from 6.1.1998 upto 4.4.1998 for having suffered compound type III commuted fracture and external fixator was applied. He was again re-admitted on 5.10.1998 to 30.10.1998 and tibialization of fibula was done. During all this period the claimant remained in great agony and severe pain and even in future he will not be able to walk without the help of clutches. He cannot climb stairs or walk a longer distance without assistance. He has virtually become a parasite at the age of 25 years. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 50,000/-, on account of pain and sufferings, does not, in any manner, appear to be excessive or unreasonable. 6. As far the loss of earnings during the period the claimant remained hospitalized after the accident till the date of final award is concerned, the compensation worked out at Rs. 1,10,000/- on the monthly income of Rs. 3000/- for a period of 55 months has rightly been assessed and is just and reasonable. 7. For the treatment given to the claimant during the period of his hospitalization and expenses incurred on such treatment, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded which includes the attendant charges and other ancillary expenses, which, in my opinion, is just and reasonable. The claimant is a bachelor and on account of injuries suffered by him his marriage prospect has become grim. He has become permanently disabled and has been deprived of normal amenities throughout his life. No amount of money can restore him all these amenities what he has lost but the compensation under this head is only sort of sympathy and solace. The total amount of compensation on various heads, therefore, comes to Rs. 4,22,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of claim petition. The interest of 9%, however, will not be applicable on the loss of future earnings. 8. As regards CIMA No. 189 of 2003 is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,41,232/- as compensation under various heads. 9. 4,22,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of claim petition. The interest of 9%, however, will not be applicable on the loss of future earnings. 8. As regards CIMA No. 189 of 2003 is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,41,232/- as compensation under various heads. 9. So far as the loss of dependency is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the dependency at Rs. 4,01,232/- while adopting the multiplier of 13, after taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of his death, after working out the share per unit, which is reasonable and proper in the instant case. The amount awarded on account of loss of consortium, loss of Estate and funeral expenses, in the facts and circumstances, does not appear to be unjust or unreasonable, as vehemently argued by Mr. C. S. Gupta, Advocate, during arguments. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants of the deceased, Ram Lal, in this case is just and reasonable and does not necessitate interference in appeal. 10. With above modification in the award passed in claim petition No. 651 titled Deep Raj v. Dev Raj and another, these appeals are disposed of.