Wing Commander (Retd) O.P. Verma vs Dharam Singh and Others

G. P. MITTAL, J.—The Appellant Wing Commander (Retd.) O.P. Verma (Squadron Leader at the time of the accident) seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs. 2,88,000/- awarded to him for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 08.01.1988. On the fateful day i.e. 08.01.1988, the Appellant was in the process of boarding a bus DEP 4483 Route No. 610 at Central Secretariat. The bus driver (the First Respondent) suddenly started the bus. On account of the jerk, the Appellant fell down and suffered multiple fractures on his right leg. He was admitted in the Army Hospital from 08.01.1988 to 16.02.1988, 15.03.1988 to 9.05.1988 and from 20.06.1988 to 25.06.1988. He was operated on 25.03.1988. On account of the restriction of movements in his right lower limb, the Appellant was put in permanent low medical category with effect from 01.12.1990.

At the time of the accident, the Appellant was getting a salary of Rs. 10,495/-. Although, he got promotion as Wing Commander; the Appellant''s case is that as he could not have been promoted as Group Captain due to him being placed in permanent low medical category, he took voluntary retirement in the year 1997 at the age of 46 years.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) assessed the loss of earning capacity after the age of his superannuation to be 25% vis-a-vis his whole body, adopted a multiplier of 5 after the age of retirement, to grant him compensation towards loss of earning capacity.

The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:

Sl. No.

Compensation under various heads

Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

1.

Pain, Shock and Suffering

Rs. 25,000/-

2.

Loss of Leave

Rs. 63,000/-

3.

Loss of Future Earning Capacity

Rs. 1,50,000/-

4.

Conveyance and Transport

Rs. 8,000/-

+ Rs. 40,000/-

Total

Rs. 2,88,000/-

The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant is that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of future earning capacity and loss of amenities in life is low. No compensation has been awarded towards disfigurement and future medical treatment.

The sum of Rs. 40,000/- was not counted by the Claims Tribunal while totaling the amount, thus a compensation of Rs. 2,48,000/- was awarded to the Appellant.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company argues that the Appellant took voluntary retirement of his own without any compulsion. The compensation awarded is just and reasonable. As far as mistake in totaling a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- which as awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards inconvenience, loss of expectation of life is concerned, it may be granted to him.

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) enjoins the Claims Tribunal and the Courts to award compensation which is just and reasonable. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , the Supreme Court held as under: -

5......The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales''. All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards.

At the time of the accident, the Appellant was a young Air Force Officer aged 37 years. After the accident, he got promoted as Wing Commander. It is established on record that if found suitable, he could have been promoted to the rank of Group Captain. However, him being placed in lower medical category, he was not entitled to the said promotion.

It was Appellant''s voluntary decision to seek premature retirement. In normal course, he would have continued in service till the age of 52 years. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that an Army/Air Force Officer gets suitable employment in good private sector companies after their retirement. The Claims Tribunal for this purpose took the multiplier of 5 which at the age of 52 was very low. I would assume the loss of earning capacity to be 25% in respect of the whole body as taken by the Claims Tribunal, but would add 30% towards future prospects and adopt a multiplier of 11 at the age of 52 years which was normal age of superannuation in his case. The loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs. 4,50,235/- ( Rs. 10495/- x 12 + 30% x 25% x 11) instead of Rs. 1,50,000/- as granted by the Claims Tribunal.

It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which has been suffered by the claimant on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim of a motor accident. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the parts of the body where the injuries were sustained; surgeries (if any) underwent by the victim; confinement in the hospital and the duration of the treatment. The Appellant has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under this head. On the scale of the value of money in the year 1988 when this accident took place the compensation seems to be just and reasonable.

The Appellant would have inconvenience throughout his life. He would have difficulty in squatting, running and boarding a public transport bus. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities, disfigurement and loss of expectation of life needs enhancement. The same is increased to Rs. 60,000/-.

No specific evidence was produced in relation to future treatment. Even as a retired Air Force Officer, the Appellant shall be entitled to the facility of free treatment in Government/Army Hospital where he got treatment in respect of the injuries suffered in the accident. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to award any compensation towards future treatment.

The overall compensation is increased from Rs. 2,88,000/- to Rs. 6,08,235/- which shall carry interest @ 12% per annum for a period of six years up to the date of the award i.e. 07.09.1999. The Appeal was dismissed in default on 07.03.2008 and then again on 20.07.2011. In the circumstances, the Appellant would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% for nine years from the date of the filing of the Appeal till the judgment of this Court and thereafter till the deposit of the enhanced amount by the Respondent Insurance Company.

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,20,235/- along with interest shall be deposited by the Respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in the name of the Appellant in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch within six weeks. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.