Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 22 (CHH)

GOPALNAG v. OMPRAKASH @BABLU

2007-01-09

V.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2007
ORDER 1. This appeal is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act") directed against the award dated 12/12/2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar, in Claim Case No. 74/99 whereby appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal for enhancement. 2. The case in brief is that on 03/05/1998 appellant along with respondent No.2 Mahendra Kaushal was coming on Scooter No. M.P.25-A/5433 driven by respondent No.2, when the scooter reached near Suryodaya Lodge, Jeep bearing No. MP-23- W-2594 coming from the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 who was owner of the vehicle dashed the scooter, as a result of which appellant received grievous injuries and his right bone below the knee was fractured. Appellant suffered 52% permanent disability. Owner of the offending Jeep No. MP-23/W/2594 is respondent No.1 and Scooter No. MP-25-A/5433 is respondent No.2. Both these vehicles were insured with respondent No.3. Appellant claiming compensation of Rs.2,60,800/- filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act"). 3. During the course of arguments, only quantum has been disputed. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd and others, appellant is entitled for damages towards pecuniary loss and non pecuniary loss. Learned Tribunal failed to consider nature of his injury, his permanent disability and passed an award of a meagre sum. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that looking to the nature of in juries and suffering of the appellant, at least enhancement in between Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- may equate, just and proper compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that the award granted by the trial Court is just and proper. 4. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of R.D. Hattangadi1 (supra) has held thus : "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 actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of 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 damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may 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. From the medical evidence tendered by Dr. Veerendra Kwnar Jha (PW/2) and medical report (Ex.P/7), it is proved that the appellant suffered permanent disability in his right leg up to 52%. Following permanent physical disability in right leg have been certified and proved by medical evidence of Dr. Veerendra Kwnar Jha (PW/2) : (1) Weakness of right leg. (2) Wasting of muscles of right leg-1" (3) Cannot walk properly for a long distance. (4) Cannot walk on slopes. (5) Cannot climb stairs. (6) Cannot stand properly on right leg. (7) Cannot take turn properly while walking. (8) Cannot sit on leg. (9) Cannot sit properly in kneeling and squatting portion on floor. 6. Learned Tribunal allowed Rs.10,000/- towards disability, Rs.5,000/-towards treatment and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and agony. For (i) pain and suffering likely to be suffered in future (ii) for loss of amenities of life i.e., on account of injury he is unable to perform his natural work in proper manner; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life; (iv) on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life, nothing has been awarded to the appellant. No amount of money can compensate such a loss, even respondent No.3 did not agree to demand of appellant that was proposed in between Rs.70,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. No amount of money can compensate such a loss, even respondent No.3 did not agree to demand of appellant that was proposed in between Rs.70,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Total enhancement of Rs.70,000/- if allowed, as claimed during the course of argument; in addition to the amount already awarded, towards all those heads, in which Tribunal did not allow a penny may fulfill the requirement of just and reasonable compensation and will also meet the ends of justice. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. (i) . Respondent No.3 shall pay Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) to the appellant in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (ii) Respondent No.3 shall pay interest @ Rs.6% on the amount enhanced from 03/01/2001, till realization. (iii) Respondent No.3 shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the appeal to the appellant.