Assam State Transport Corporation vs Anes Biswas

K. Lahiri, J.—We propose to dispose of the appeals u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 preferred by the State Transport Corporation by a single and integral judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals which stem from a common Award made by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Gauhati.

It appears that an endeavour was made for early disposal of the appeals by dispensing with the preparation of the paper book. The records called from the Tribunal were at the disposal of this Court at the relevant time. However, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.11,85. In consequence of the order of dismissal the records were sent down by the Registry to the Tribunal. Later, on 23.1.86 the appeals are restored to file. The appeals have come up for hearing today and now we find that the records are not before us. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. G. Sarma learned Counsel for the Respondents find it very difficult to argue on the merits of the claims without the records. The appeals could have been disposed of even without the records on the basis of the award provided the assessments of compensation for personal injuries sustained by the victims were in accordance with the set principles of law, It is, therefore, felt by learned Counsel for the parties that just and fair compensation could not be determined without the records as the counsel have no sufficient materials with them to assist us. It will take sometime to get the records back, to hear the appeals and dispose of the matters. Further the problem is compounded as the award does not show how did the Tribunal calculated pecuniary loss and non pecuniary loss sustained by the claimants. To determine the compensation payable to the claimants it is essential to appreciate the materials. In the instant case the awards suffer from obvious lacunae or shortfalls. On perusal of the Award it is not possible to determine the contention of the Appellant.

In the instant case as a result of the motor accident the Respondents suffered personal injuries lodged applications for compensation. As many as 4 issues were framed, Learned Tribunal held on the evidence on record that the claimants Respondents while travelling in the State Transport Bus No. ASX 2554 sustained the injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle owned by the Corporation. The Tribunal concluded that the claimants sustained the injuries arising out of the accident, We make it very clear that before us these aspects of the matter have not been questioned by Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. Sarma has submitted that the assessment of compensation for personal injuries have been made without following the set principles for the determination of compensation. It has been urged that in such cases special compensation as well as general compensation may be awarded by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel submits that special compensation relates to the amount expended in medicine, hospital care and other medical attendance obtained or procured for the injured- It may also include other pecuniary losses. In assessing general damages various factors are required to be considered which are non-pecuniary loss like, pain and suffering, loss of the amenities of life or the pleasures that make life tolerable for most people with particular reference to the class of the people to which the injured belongs, the chance of marriage becoming bleak, loss of earnings, the costs of attention the victims might need during the rest of his/her life and the shortening of life due to injuries and also other factors.

The assessment of damages in case of personal loss is one of the most difficult task which a judge is to perform and accordingly Tribunals have been constituted under "the Act" and "the Rules" to assess compensation, They have special knowledge and expertise. The task of assessment of damage is difficult because the elements which need be considered in forming the assessment in a case vary from case to case and even amongst persons injured in an accident. There can be no fixed and unalterable Standard for assessing the compensation. There may not be straight jacked formulae for the assessment of compensation but the Tribunals are making these assessment over years and they have engineered some guiding light to reach the approximate loss. The relevant factors for the assessment of compensation for personal injuries may be divided into two broad heads. First, those which are capable of being measured in terms of money, Commonly styled as '' pecuniary lots'' those financial loss can be assessed arithmetically. Secondly, those which can not be so assessed, which are generally known as ''non pecuniary loss". By and large the claim for compensation of personal injury or loss sustained by the victim of a motor accident should be assessed bearing in mind among others, the following relevant elements:

(A) PECUNIARY LOSS:

expenses caused by the injuries;

Loss of earning or profits-

(a) from the date of accident till the date of trial;

(b) prospective loss of earning or profits.

(B) NON-PECUNIARY LOSS:

Pain and suffering caused to the injured victims;

Loss of the amenities of life;

Loss of expectation of life.

The impugned awards do not show that the learned Tribunal kept before him any set guideline or principles for the determination of compensation for personal injuries. The learned Member has not considered the non-pecuniary loss sustained or to be sustained by the Respondent. He has not decided the prospective loss of earnings or profits of the Respondent from the date of accident till the date of trial. Even the finding regarding expenses incurred by the victims for treatment have not been correctly assessed, There are various omission and commissions.

Under these circumstances, we are constrained to uphold the submission of Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant in stating that the assessment of compensation awarded to the Respondents was entirely based on guess-work or random assessment, without following the basic principles for determination of compensation in such cases. We do not express any option as to whether the assessment of compensation is on the low side or on the high side as Mr. G. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Respondents also agree with Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the matter may be sent back to the Tribunal for assessing the compensation for personal injuries sustained by the Respondents who were claimants in case Nos. 41(K) of 1976 and 44(K) of 1976.

We, therefore, on concession of the parties set aside the award of compensation for personal injuries sustained by the Respondents for due determination by the learned Tribunal in accordance with the principles governing the assessment of compensation in such cases.

We make it very clear that learned Tribunal shall only decide the quantum of compensation payable to the Respondents-claimants. Learned Counsel of both the parties pray that the parties might be given opportunities to adduce evidence touching the question of quantum of compensation. Learned Tribunal shall allow the parties to adduce further and other evidence. However, the cases ought to be decided within 3 months from the date of receipt of records by the learned Tribunal. We direct the parties to appear before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 10th July, 1986 to take necessary orders from the learned Tribunal. We are making it very clear that we have set aside the award of compensation in respect of case No. 41(K)/76 and 44(K)/76 and the awards made in respect of claimants other than the Respondents shall not be affected. If in pursuance to any order of the Court any amount has been paid to the Respondent or Respondents the status-quo shall remain force until the final award is made by the learned Tribunal.

Before parting with the record we say that we have purposely refrained from making any observations as to whether the award is on the side or on the low side as the matter shall open for determination by the learned Tribunal.

In the result the appeals are allowed, however, we snake no order as to costs.