Back
High Court Of Delhi
RATTAN LAL MEHTA - Appellant
Versus
RAJINDER KAPOOR - Respondent
Decided On : 01/19/1996
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988(as amended by Amendment Act of 1994) -Appendix — Table of multiplier can be treated as relevant for incidents occurred before 15 — 11 — 94 to avoid selection of multiplier based on conflicting judicial decisions.
Tort - General damages — Non pecuniary damages — For pain, suffering, loss of amenities, disfigurement and loss of expectation of life — Considerations for grant of damages — Grant of full compensation or moderate compensation — The principle governing the award of damages including the personal approach taking into account the feelings as also the approach of award of damages with a view to provide solace — Discussed. General damages — Non pecuniary damages for injuries suffered by a person — The classification of injuries for award of damages — Discussed.
Held:
Cases of injuries can be classifed into four major categories (a) total wrecks, (b) partial wrecks, (c) where limbs and eyes and other specific parts of the body are lost and (d) smaller injuries which cannot be specifically grouped e.g. comparing permanent wrist injury with loss of hand or comparing a temporarily broken arm with loss of arm etc. Total wreck category comprise of cases of complete incapacity or work and virtually no enjoyment of life e.g. paralysis, severe brain damage causing insanity, multipliers injuries leaving the victim cripple. The partial wreck cases are cases where body is affected and not one set of limbs alone as in the third category. Cases of brain injury resulting in personality change and multiple injuries with grave disfigurement fall in the second category. The third category does not present anya difficulty in classification. The fourth category deals with minor injuries of limb. Conventional figures for non — pecuniary damages must keep pace with the times we live in. They must take into account inflation and advances in science,medicine and rehabilitation.
General Damages — Non pecuniary damages — Its amount cannot be kept low merely because amount of pecuniary damages is high.
General Damages — Non pecuniary damages — There is no discrimination between rich and poor in awarding the damages.
Damages — Life expectancy — Considerations for application of multiplier — Considerations for — Discussed.
A multiplier cannot be the difference between the age at the death (for age at the trial of an injured person) and his expected years of remaining life. This is because even if there is no accident, the persons expectation of life depends upon the general mortality rates applicable to him as he moves up from one birthday to the next birthday. While death is certain and men are mortal, the time of death remains a mystery. Knowledge of future is denied to mankind (Lord Scarman in Lims case) (1980 A.C. 174) and that is where mortality rates play an important role in mathematics, statistics and with actuaries. Insurance premia are based on these theories and are computed by actuaries.
The future chances of survival from year to year have to be added up. Present values have to be arrived at by a discount rate applicable to periods of stable currency.
The advantage of the actuarial multiplier is that it will give a sum which will exhaust the principal over the period for which the future dependency (or earnings in injury case) is to last. The amount arrived at is not like the one arrived at in the interest method where the principal remains as an additional gain while interest is consumed periodically.
In fact, in the most advanced countries like U.K, Australia, Canada or U.S.A, where mortality rates are far lower as compared to India and survival rates high er, the multipliers do not generally extend beyond 18 or 20. No doubt as per the Supreme Court in G.M.K.S.R.T.C. VS. Susamma Thomas, the highest multiplier can be only 15. This stands now slightly modified by the statutory multiplier table of 1994 which shows a maximum of 18.
( 1 ) IN this Appeal, we are considering certain fundamental theories concerning non-pecuniary damages and certain principles concerning the basis and applicability of the statutory multiplier Table introduced by Parliament by Act 54/94. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in FAO No. 162 of 1983 dated 19. 1. 1989. The appeal is by the victim of the accident which occured on 28. 3. 1978 consequent to which the right eye of the appellant had to be removed. The appellant had to remain in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences upto 10. 5. 1978. In the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the appellant filed Suit No. 47 of 1978 on 8. 11. 1978 claiming a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 66,200. 00 with costs against both the 1st respondent (Mr. Rajinder Kapoor) and the 2nd respondent (The National Insurance Co. Ltd. with interest at 9% from date of filing of the petition till realisation. The Tribunal gave a finding that 1st respondent was rash and negligent in driving his car DHA 8673 and in hitting the appellant s car DLF 3229 resulting in appellant s car getting smashed and appellant receiving serious injuries, losing his right eye and suffering permanent facial disfigurement. Appellant was in Hospital from 28. 3. 78 to 10. 5. 78. Appellant was 51 years at that time and was working, at that time, as a Commercial Assistant in the Swiss Embassy and getting Rs. 3. 000. 00 p. m. Due to the loss of one eye he has not been able to drive his car himself, and had to employ a driver.
( 2 ) THE Tribunal referred to the plea of the Insurance Company that the appellant had written on 16. 9. 78 to the Company that he was willing to accept Rs. 25,000. 00 and was therefore barred from claiming more. The appellant contended that he did so in the hope that the matter need not go to Court and the amount would be paid very soon but the Insurance Co. dragged on the matter and hence the present petition had to be filed in Tribunal on 8. 11. 78. The Tribunal noticed that in the letter the appellant asked for payment at an early date and having regard to the fact that the accident occured on 28. 3. 78 and there being no response in writing from the Insurancy Company as to whether they were prepared to accept this offer, the appellant was not barred from claiming whatever was legally due to him in a Court of Law. The Insurance Company did not examine any person to say that they had - as pleaded by them asked the appellant (i. e. orally) to file a petition before the Tribunal so that a compromise decree could be passed. None was examined for the Company to prove any such compromise. Therefore, there was no proof of alleged offer by the respondent nr of its acceptance by the appellant not of any oral understanding that a compromise decree could be passed. That Finding against the Insurance Company has become final.
( 3 ) THE Tribunal then went into the question of. compensation payable and awarded Rs. 15,000. 00 as general damages on account of pain and suffering. Towards special damages, Rs. 6. 000. 00 for medical expenses for removal of the eye etc. and estimated taxi expenditure as Rs. 625. 00 p. m. for 25 days and deducted the earlier expenditure of Rs. 450. 00 p. m. and estimated the increase in expenditure at Rs. 175. 00 pm for reaching his office and coming back. Appellant was to retire after 65 years of age and at the rate of Rs. ,2100. 00 per annum for 10 years towards capitalisation - (and not for 14 years because appellant might resume driving or accept cheaper means of travel) and awarded Rs. 21,000. 00 on this count. Appellant was hospitalised from 28. 3. 78 to 10. 5. 78 for 2 months and 12 days and towards loss of leave, Rs. 4,200. 00 was awarded. The Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 towards loss of amenities and future enjoyment of life. In all Rs. 66,200. 00 was awarded with interest at 9% from date of petition to date of realisation
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
