JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the award by the Claims Tribunal under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, whereby the Tribunal determined Rs. 3120 as the amount of compensation payable by the appellants.

2. The facts leading to this appeal may be broadly stated. It was on 5th February 1966 at about 10.30 p. m. that a boy Damodar was knocked down by a truck owned by appellant (2). The truck was driven by respondent (2). Damodar was on a bicycle when the accident occurred. He was rushed to the hospital where after medical treatment he was discharged on 9th February, 1966. The respondent (1), father of Damodar, moved the Claims Tribunal for compensation under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Judge presiding over the Tribunal examined Damodar, the respondent (1) and other evidence and then determined compensation as stated above.

3. Shri D'Souza, learned counsel for the appellants, attacks the award on various grounds, mentioned in the memorandum. He concedes that the respondent (2) was negligent while driving the truck. According to him the injuries received by Damodar did not result in permanent disablement and were not of a serious nature. Shri D'Souza objects to the award of Rs. 2,000 as "moral damages" suffered as a result of the accident. The question of compensation is to be considered in the context of the injuries suffered by Damodar and also other relevant factors. Shri D'Souza says that distinction is to be made between special and general damages. This is correct Assessment of damages is often a difficult task. It is well settled that damages are of two kinds - special and general. Examples of special damages are hospital and medical expenses, financial loss of income because of having someone to replace the injured to carry on his duties. Damages of this kind seldom present any serious difficulty. It is the general damages which often present difficulty. Examples of general damages are pain and suffering, reduced earning capacity, inconvenience and loss of endowment of life.

4. Shri Verlekar, learned counsel for the respondents, draws my attention to the decision of the Punjab High Court reported in State of Punjab v. Smt. Phool Kumari, AIR 1963 Punj 125. This was a case of collision of two vehicles resulting in death of person. The facts of each case are different but the principles stated in this decision is of assistance. One of the principles is that nothing is to be paid by way of solatium. It is also stated that intervention of an appellate Court in assessment of damages in cases of accident where persons suffer death or are injured is called for only when the compensation determined has been reached by application of some wrong principle of law, or the amount is so inordinately low or the inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the compensation determined. This decision follows the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1. The case with which their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing was one under the Fatal Accidents Act (1855). Subba Rao, J., (as he then was), stated that in calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. This decision, with respect is not helpful to us. In this case we are not dealing with a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act. Shri Verlekar also relied on the decision Champalal v. Venkataraman', AIR 1966 Mad 466. This was a case of tort where, on account of the negligence of the taxidriver, the claimant who prosecuted his claim under the Motor Vehicles Act became lame, in spite of medical treatment in the hospital for a period of ten months. The learned Judge considered the question whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive or not; in this case the compensation awarded was Rs. 10864/47. While considering this question the learned Judge considered various heads of compensa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document