AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
By the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the findings of the Claims Tribunal dated 26th October, 2004, by which a sum of Rs. 59,538 has been awarded against the respondents No. 1 and 2 along with the interest @ 6% per annum.
Briefly stated, the claim petition was filed on behalf of the appellant Sri Chandra Pal Singh Rana for grant of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 7/8th March, 2003. The appellant has alleged that on 7/8th March, 2003, in the night at 12:30, he was coming from Ardh Kumbh Mela on his Motor Cycle No. U.A. 08-B--8805 and was going to the office of the Ardh Kumbh Mela, Dev Pura. As soon as he reached near Kashyap Dharamshala a Maruti Car bearing No. DL-3 CM-6731, which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the motor cycle due to which the appellant received grievous injuries. He was admitted to the Government Hospital and subsequently he was referred for medical treatment at Meerut. The appellant was thereafter referred to Medical College Delhi, where a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) was spent by him on his treatment. According to the appellant a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (two lacs) were incurred on his treatment.
The F.I.R. of the said accident was also lodged at P.S. Kankhal, Haridwar and the case was registered against the owner of the said Maruti.
At the time of the accident, the appellant/injured was getting salary of Rs. 9,000 per month as a constable L.I.U. He has stated if he would not have met with the said accident, he would have gone to the rank of Inspector with the salary of Rs. 15,000 to 16,000 per month.
According to the appellant, he has become seventy per cent disabled due to the injury in his right hand. He has also alleged that he is the only bread-earner in his family and a sum of Rs. 20,000 has been spent towards travelling expenses. Apart from, the above, the family of the appellant has also suffered mental agony. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 24,61,500.
The opposite parties contested the claim petition before the Tribunal by filing their separate written statements.
Respondent No. 1 Sri Jagriti Srivastava, the owner of the Maruti Car in his written statement denied all the allegations mentioned in the claim petition.
It has been admitted by the respondent No. 2 National Insurance Company that the vehicle was duly insured with him on the date of the aforesaid accident.
Similarly, respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company has also admitted that the vehicle No. DL-3-CM-6831 was insufed with the United India Insurance Company under Policy No. 7318562 on the date of the accident.
The Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties, framed four issues and on the basis of evidence on record, allowed the claim petition accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in the appeal.
On behalf of the claimant P.W. 1 was examined, who clearly stated in his statement that due to the said accident, he has lost his promotional avenues otherwise at the time of retirement, he would have been drawing the salary of Rs. 20,000 per month and therefore, he has suffered mental agony as well. The said statement is quoted below :
^^blds vykok esjs vkus tkus [kkus ihus ij Hkh [kpZ gqvk FkkA esjh lfoZl ds chl lky cdk;k gSaA esjs izeks''ku gksus dh lEHkkouk FkhA fjVk;jesaV rd esjk osru 20]000 :- gks tkrkA eSa vf/kdkj ls vkxs dke ugha dj ldrkA esjk vHkh bykt py jgk gSA MkDVj us esjh ckag lgh gksus ls bUdkj dj fn; gSA eq>s ''kkjhfjd ,oa ekuflad d"V ,oa vU; izfrdkj 24]61]000 :i;s fnyk;k tkosA mDr nqq?kZVuk esa esjh eksVj lkbfdy {kfrxzLr gks x;h] mls Hkh fny;k tkosA**
On behalf of the appellant, the evidence was produced by filing the certificates of the medical treatments. In one of the certificates, it has come that the appellant has suffered seventy per cent disablement. The said certificate has been issued on 8th June, 2004, by the Chief Medical Officer, Haridwar in accordance with G.O. 7/4207I Karmik dated 20th May. 1978. The loss of working efficiency has been shown to the extent of 70 per cent. This certificate has also been proved by the appellant in the statement of P.W. 1 Exhibit Ka-1.
Similar statement has been made by P.W. 2, the son of the appellant stating therein that his father was going on the Motor Cycle and due to the accident, he has also suffered injuries, which has resulted in the loss of efficiency to the extent of 70 per cent.
Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 59,538 along with 6% interest per annum. The findings of the Claims Tribunal so far as the accident is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the Insurance Company either by the respondent No. 1 or 2, therefore, issues No. 1, 2 and 3 have become final.
Admittedly, the accident had taken place on 7/8th March, 2004, as a result of which the appellant suffered the injuries resulting in seventy per cent disablement due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Car No. DL-3CM-6831.
The claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the amount on the ground that he is entitled for the compensation on account of the loss of 70 per cent efficiency.
We have perused the record and it has come in the evidence that due to the injury he has lost his all promotional avenues. He has given the details of the amount in his claim petition, which he has spent.
A perusal of the said application shows that up till now, he has spent Rs. 1 lac, and in future, he will be requiring a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to meet the operation of his hand. He has given the details in his claim petition. The same is being reproduced below :
^^izkFkhZ dk esfMdy eqvk;uk jktdh; fyk fpfdRlky; gfj}kj esa gqvk] tgka ls mldh xEHkhj fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, bZct fpfdRlky; esjB esa jSaQj fd;k x;k tgka izkFkhZ dk ,d lIrkg esa vf/kd bykt pyk] mlds ckn izkFkh dks fnYyh ds fpfdRld ds ;gka HkrhZ djk;k x;k] tgka izkFkhZ dk bykt pyk rFkk fpfdRldksa dh ns[k&js[k esa bykt py jgk gSA bykt vkfn ij 1]00]000 :i;s [kpZ gks pqdk gS rFkk Hkfo"; esa bykt vkfn ds pyrs jgus ij yxHkx 2]00]000@& :i;s vkSj [kpZ gksus dh lEHkkouk gS rFkk izkFkh dks LFkk;h :i ls fodykaxrk Hkh gks x;h gSA
In the claim petition, it has been mentioned that he has lost all his promotional avenues otherwise, he would have been entitled for the salary of 15,000 to 16,000 up to the age of his retirement. The same is quoted below :
^^;g gS fd ?kVuk ls iwoZ izkFkhZ@DysesaV iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd v�dqEHk esyk 2004] gfj}kj ds v/khu ''ks"k lsy eas crkSj dkUlVsfcy ,y- vkbZ- ;w- fu;qDr gS vkSj esyk M;wVh ds nkSjku gh izkFkhZ @ Dyses.V dks pksVsa igaqphA izkFkhZ dks viuk osru yxHkx 9]000 :i;s izfrekg fey jgk Fkk rFkk ftlds Hkfo"; esa lc&bUlisDVj jsad rd mUufr djrs gq, 15&16]000 :i;s izfrekg osru rd igqapus dh iw.kZ lEHkkouk FkhA ijUrq nq?kZVuk ls vk;h pksVksa ds dkj.k Hkfo"; esa foHkkx ls feyus okys osru esa dVkSrh gksus dh lEHkkouk gSA ftldh {kfr izkFkhZ dks gSA bl nq?kZVuk ls vk;h pksaVksa ds dkj.k izkFkh dk lh/kk gkFk csdkj gks x;k gS rFkk lh/kk iSj Hkh csdkj gks x;k gSA ftl dkj.k izkFkhZ dks mUufr feyus dh lEHkkouk yxHkx {kh.k gks x;h gSA izkFkh ifjokj dk ,dek= vkthfodk dekus okyk lnL; gSA izkFkhZ dks nq?kZVuk ls LFkk;h :i ls fodykaxrk igqqaph gSA izkFkhZ dk ,d gkFk iw.kZr% csdkj gks x;k gS] fy[kus dh lEHkkouk;sa Hkh lekIr gks x;h gSA**
Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in view of the decision in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Put. Ltd. 1995 SC 1995 he is entitled for the compensation on account of : (i) medical attendance ; (ii) loss of earnings of profit up to the date of trial ; (iii) other material loss.
The Apex Court in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment has held in various cases 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. The relevant paragraph 9 is quoted below :
"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 actual 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."
The Apex Court in State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, , has observed as under :
"It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "Just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighted in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza ; nor a source of profit ; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "Just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be Just" a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just."
In the case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, , the Apex Court has observed as under :
"The term compensation'' as stated in the Oxford Dictionary, signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered. ''Damages'' on the other hand constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained, the value estimated in money, of something lost or withheld. The term ''compensation'' etymologically suggests the image of balancing one thing against another ; its primary signification is equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent. Pecuniary damages are to be valued on the basis of full compensation''. That concept was first stated by Lord Blackburn in Living Stone v. Rawyards Coas Co. 1980 AC 25.
The "Rule of Law" requires that the wrongs should not remain unredressed. All the individuals or persons committing wrongs should be liable in an action for damages for breach of civil law or for criminal punishment. ''Compensation'' means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay ; it need not, therefore, necessarily be in terms of money, because law may specify principles on which and manner in which compensation is to be determined and given. Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a sssperson whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to value for his loss ; or be made whole in respect of his injury ; something given or obtained as equivalent ; rendering of equivalent in value or amount ; an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another ; a recompense in value ; a recompense given for a thing received ; recompense for whole injury suffered ; remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description. The expression ''compensation'' is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to ''damages'', although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for a breach. The term ''compensation'' as pointed out in the Oxford Dictionary signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered ; ''damages'' on the other hand constitute the sum of money, claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained. ''Compensation'' is a return for a loss or damages sustained. Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind.
It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Merris in West v. Shepard, Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. Object of providing compensation is to place claimant as far as possible in the same position financially as he was before accident. Broadly speaking, in the case of death basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses, etc. and loss of the estate. Object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring value of human life and measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation ; but amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. It should neither be punitive against whom claim is decreed nor it should be a source of profit of the person in whose favour it is awarded. Upjohn L.J. in Charter House Credit v. Jolly, remarked, ''the assessment of damages has never been an exact science ; it is essentially practical.
The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. In case of personal injury the position is different from loss of property. In the later case there is possibility of repair or restoration. But in the case of personal injury, the possibility of repair or restoration is practically nonexistent. In Parry v. Cleaver, Lord Marris stated as follows :
"To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult, but .......... no other process can be devised than that of making monetary assessment."
The main principles of law on compensation for injuries were worked out in 19th Century, where railways accidents were becoming common and all actions were tried by Jury. Though the cases have anti-quanted air it is still useful to refer to them. The necessity that damages should be ''full'' and adequate'' was stressed by the Court by Queen''s Bench in Fair v. London and North-Western Railway Co. The word compensation is derived from Latin word "compensare" meaning "weight together" or "balance". In Rushton v. National Coal Board, it was observed :
"Every member of this Court is anxious to do all he can do to ensure that the damages are adequate for the injuries suffered, so far as they can be compensated for an injury, and to help the parties and others to arrive at a fair and just figure."
We have examined the evidence on the record and we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1 lac towards compensation as he having lost seventy per cent of his working efficiency as well as his promotional avenues.
Consequently, the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lac compensation with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum. The amount of Rs. 59,538 already awarded shall be given due credit.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed.