The main legal point established is the need for substantial compensation for non-pecuniary damages in cases of permanent disability, as established by various judicial decisions.

J.R. Midha, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 2,20,300/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 2nd September, 2000 resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant was aged 16 years at the time of accident. The appellant was admitted in Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital on 2nd September, 2000. The appellant was discharged on 6th September, 2000 and he continued the treatment in the OPD for about four years. The appellant is disabled to the extent of about 40% in respect of the right ankle as per the disability certificate - Ex.PW3/2. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences examined the appellant and issued a certificate, Ex.PW3/1 that the IQ was within the range of 45% to 50% and had moderate mental retardation. PW-4, Professor Manju Mehta appeared in the witness box and deposed that the intelligence of the appellant was assessed and the disability was found to be 45% to 50% and there were no chances of any improvement in the future. She further deposed that the appellant had developed moderate mental retardation after the accident due to the head injury (Ex.PW3/3 & Ex.PW3/J). The appellant claimed to be self employed, earning Rs. 4500/- per month in leather purse business. The Claims Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of 16. The Claims Tribunal took the loss of earning capacity of the appellant to be 50% on the basis of the disability certificate and awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability. The claim Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,300/- towards expenditure on treatment, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and conveyance, Rs. 30,000/- towards non-pecuniary compensation and Rs. 40,000/- towards permanent mental retardation. The total compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the appellant is Rs. 2,20,300/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has made following submissions at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The compensation for loss of pain and suffering be enhanced.

(ii) The compensation for loss of amenities of life be enhanced.

(iii) The compensation for loss of income due to permanent disability be enhanced.

(iv) The rate of interest be enhanced from 7% per annum to 12% per annum.

4. The appellant has suffered about 40% disability with respect to the right ankle and 45% to 50% disability with respect to his medical condition with no chance of improvement which has resulted in 50% loss of earning capacity in respect of which the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as non-pecuniary compensation. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. V.S. Vijay Kumar Mittal, 2008 ACJ 1300, this Court discussed the principles relating to the award of non-pecuniary compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and disfiguration. This Court examined all the previous judgments with respect to the non-pecuniary compensation awarded in the case of permanent disability and held that the courts have awarded about Rs. 3,00,000/- under the heads of non-pecuniary damages for permanent disability of 50% and above. The findings of this Court are as under:-

“10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be gi