Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 213 (GAU)

Monoranjan Debbarma v. Sandha Rani Debnath

2012-02-16

SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Saha for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for respondent No. 2, Insurance Company. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the judgment and award dated 09.08.2006, passed by the learned Single Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, in case No. T.S. (MAC) 504 of 2004. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Saha that though the appellant has raised various points in the Memorandum of Appeal but he does not like to insist upon other points but concentrates his argument assailing the judgment on the ground that no compensation was awarded on non-pecuniary head and the appellant therefore was deprived. He has submitted that the appellant, being a daily labourer, was certified to have been suffering from 70% disability because of the accident and suffering from paraplegia in the lower part of his body below waist, and as a result, he has become permanently disabled. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal did not award anything as compensation towards pain and sufferings and for discomfort, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment and mental stress, etc. for the rest of his life. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas, however, supported the judgment and submits that the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal, though, has no component on the items of pain and sufferings and on the item of discomfort, etc. for the rest of life, but total compensation cannot be said to be negligible or much below the expectation. 5. Since the compensation towards loss of income and towards cost of treatment, etc. are not in challenge, we may not enter into those components of compensation again and determine the appeal only on the issue of payment of compensation towards non-pecuniary head i.e. pain and sufferings and discomfort, etc. for the rest of life. 6. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , (1995) 1 SCC 551 , the Apex Court, considered the mood of fixing amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident and observed that the damages should be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , (1995) 1 SCC 551 , the Apex Court, considered the mood of fixing amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident and observed that the damages should be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. The Court observed thus: 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 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 upto 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. Undisputedly, in the case in hand, the Tribunal, while arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner suffered grievous injury and undertaken treatment for a prolonged period and he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70%, in the lower part of his body below waist, awarded compensation only on the count of pecuniary damages and no compensation was awarded towards special damages i.e. for the mental and physical shock, pain and sufferings already suffered and likely to be suffered in future as well as for the damages towards loss of amenities of life, etc. The petitioner was an able-bodied man and used to work as a daily labour. The petitioner was an able-bodied man and used to work as a daily labour. Because of the accident he suffered paraplegia and has become disabled to the extent of 70% and the lower part of his body below the waist has become crippled as submitted, and as a result for the purpose of his profession he, in all practical purpose, became 100% disabled. Further he has lost his comfort and amenities of life and has to depend on others and the rest of the life he has to pass with hardship, discomfort, inconvenience, frustration and mental stress, etc. The learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation, did not consider all those factors and admittedly did not grant any compensation to the petitioner on that count. 7. Considering the nature of injury, period of treatment and the pain and sufferings suffered by the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand), as a lump sum, is awarded as compensation. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner lost all his amenities of life and he has to suffer inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, frustration and mental stress in the rest of his life, further amount of Rs. 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) is awarded as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Insurance Company was held responsible for making payment of the amount by the Tribunal and that has not been challenged. For the additional amount to be paid as calculated above, the Insurance Company is to bear the responsibility of making the payment with interest thereon. 8. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the claimant petitioner is entitled to get a further amount of Rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand) with 6% interest thereon from the date of presentation of the petition and the payment should be made within 60(sixty) days from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition before the Tribunal. 9. Copy of this judgment/order may be made available to both the parties for compliance.