The court emphasized the need to award substantial, just, and fair damages in personal injury cases and upheld the principles of awarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

JUDGMENT :

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. Present appeal arises out of the award of compensation passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 10.2.2006. Learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 12,95,000 with an interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident.

2. Brief summary of facts of the case to deal with contentions raised by the parties are as under:

That the claimant Har Lal, aged about 50 years, sustained grievous injuries on 20.7.2003 at about 6 p.m. at Delhi-Hapur Road near Achheja village within the jurisdiction of P.S. Hapur Kotwali, Hapur, U.P. when his motor cycle bearing No. HR 33-D 8678 on which he was riding was allegedly hit by a tanker bearing No. UP 14-B 5121 at a fast speed in a rash and reckless manner. The motor cycle was dragged by the tanker to some distance as a result his right hand was severed at the spot. Thereafter, he was taken to Khan Nursing Home, Hapur by the public where he was given first aid and brought to St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically treated for the right severed hand and right leg below knee which was also crushed under the tanker and ultimately the right leg below knee was amputated.

3. Mr. P.K. Seth, learned Counsel for the appellant, assailed the said award of learned Tribunal, firstly, on the ground that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 towards loss of earning capacity by erroneously considering the disability to the extent of 100 per cent when according to the disability certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent, Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi, which was duly proved on record, the claimant-respondent suffered 60 per cent disability. The counsel further urged that the Tribunal erred in deducting monthly expenses which the claimant would have spent on himself. The counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity as the claimant continued to work in the same scale and on the same post and with the same organisation even after injuries sustained in the said accident. The counsel also submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 8 when it was an admitted fact that the claimant would have retired after 3 years on reaching the age of superannuation. The counsel also maintained that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 each towards mental pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life and permanent disablement without any basis. The counsel further urged that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000 towards conveyance expenses, expenses towards special diet and attendant charges without any basis.

4. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Popli, learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that Claims Tribunal has granted just, fair and reasonable compensation in favour of the respondent-claimant. Counsel submitted that the respondent lost his hand and foot and after placing reliance on Schedule I to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the Tribunal gave complete justification in considering the said disability to the extent of 100 per cent. The contention of learned Counsel for the respondent is that the claimant-respondent has been rendered totally incapable due to his right hand being severed and right leg badly crushed under the wheel of the offending vehicle. Counsel also contends that the Tribunal has not considered grant of any amount towards purchase of artificial limbs and at least an amount of Rs. 8,00,000 is likely to be spent by the respondent to buy the artificial limbs. Counsel for the respondent further contended that the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 8 as laid down in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act after duly considering the age of the respondent. Counsel contended that due to the amputation of his two limbs, the respondent-claimant would not be able to do any job after his retirement otherwise had he been a normal person, certainly he