The Tribunal cannot award compensation for inadmissible and inflated claims, and it cannot raise the amount of compensation on the ground of fall in the money value, as this would amount to granting ex gratia and unauthorized amounts.

HARI LAL AGARWAL, J.

1. These two appeals arising out of the same judgment and award, were heard together and are being disposed of herewith.

2. First I will take up M. A. 136 of 1981. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant, a judicial officer since retired who was involved in a motor accident, has filed this appeal. He was driving a Fiat car on 14-11-1966 on Jhajha-Munger Road when it collided with a truck belonging to respondent No. 1 and driven by his driver. At that time the appellant was aged 53 years and drawing a salary of Rs. 1,500.00 in the Superior Judicial Service. The said truck was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. In that road accident the appellant suffered various injuries, namely, (i) fracture of certain ribs and (ii) fracture of sternum, besides some other minor injuries. The car was also badly damaged. He filed a petition of claim before the Claims Tribunal, Munger, for Rs. 53,000.00 under the following heads :

1) Expenses incurred in his treat-ment

including extra domestic expenses

for his attendants ... Rs, 3,000/-

2) Special damage for repair of his

motor car as well as prospective

expenses including loss of earning etc. ... Rs. 5,000/-

3) Non-pecuniary losses -

a) Pain, suffering and shock ... Rs. 5,000/-

b) Loss of amenities of life ... Rs. 5,000/-

c) Loss of expectancy of life ... Rs. 30,000/-

d) Inconvenience and discomfort ... Rs. 5,000/-

... Rs. 53,000/-

3 The fact of the accident and the injury sustained by the appellant as well as the damage to the car are not in dispute. The Tribunal, however, had allowed a sum of Rs. 40,000.00 in all under the following heads :

i) Taxi fare for bringing

the injured to the hospital ... ... Rs. 100/-

ii) Cottage ... ... Rs. 406/-

iii) Medicine ... ... Rs. 450/-

iv) House rent for the attendants ... ... Rs. 220/-

v) Establishment cost for the attendants ... ... Rs. 2,500/-

Rs. 3,676/-

Therefore, under the first

item of pecuniary losses the

Tribunal has allowed a sum of ... ... Rs. 676/-

more than that claimed by the

appellant. Under the second item of

pecuniary losses the Tribunal

has allowed the following amounts :

Transportation cost of the car ... ... Rs. 150/-

Fare for the family members ... ... Rs. 15/-

Damage suffered by the appellant

on account of the damage done to

the water pump which was being

carried in the car and since it

could not be installed in his

agricultural field, the standing

crops were damaged ... ... Rs.4,000/-

Cost of repair of the car ... ... Rs.2,850/-

Travelling expenses incurred by

the relations in course of appellants

medical treatment including the

amount spent by his one son in

course of his stay in Patna(1500+2500) ... ... Rs.4,000/-

Rs.11,015/-

Under the heading of non-pecuniary losses, all the items, except the sum of Rs. 30,000/-claimed as loss in expectation of life, were allowed. Thus the total of the damages allowed under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses comes to Rs. 29,691/-, but the Tribunal has allowed even a higher amount as already said earlier, namely, Rs. 40,000.00 on the ground that in between the period of accident and the date of the award "the prices of all the commodities had increased at least by double and the value of the money had come down and hence he is entitled to double the amount". Besides, the Tribunal has also allowed interest on the amount of compensation from the date of the award.

4 In spite of the fact that apparently the appellant has been allowed many inadmissible and inflated claims, he