Back
2008 Supreme(J&K) 266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
J.P. Singh, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Mukhteshwar Chib & Ors. - Respondent
CIMA No. 21/2005 Cross Appeal No. 2/2005, CMP Nos. 22/2005 And 72/2005
Decided On : 14 July, 2008
Advocate For Appellant: Vishnu Gupta
Advocate For Respondent: R.K. Bhatia
Headnote:Motor vehicle Act-Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act-Rules of pleadings are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Order 7 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires a plaintiff, seeking relief in respect of several distinct claims or causes of action founded upon separate and distinct grounds, to state them separately and distinctively, has not been made applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, and in that view of the matter, omission of the claimant to specifically claim Rs. 1.00 lac for plastic surgery, may not thus deprive him to claim this amount which according to Dr. M.K. Mam was required by the claimant for plastic surgery. I am supported in taking this view by The APSRTC vs. M. Ramadevi and ors., reported as 2008 (1) Supreme 566, in terms thereof, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act would not create any impediment in awarding compensation in excess of the amount claimed, because the function of the Tribunal is to award "just compensation" which may be found reasonable on the basis of the evidence produced on records.
Motor Vehicle Act-Section 166 awarding of compensation for loss of amenities and pleasures of life-While awarding compensation to the claimant for loss of amenities and pleasures of life, the Tribunal does not appear to have kept in view the long span of life, the claimant has to go through, as a disabled person, who will have to depend on others to maintain and sustain himself. Law laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India in R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported as (1995)1 SCC 551 was required to be kept in view by the Tribunal in assessing compensation for loss of amenities and pleasures of life.
Keeping in view the long span of more than 50 years which the claimant is expected to pass through, amount of Rs. 40,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal for loss of amenities and pleasures of life, appears to be penurious, for it would come to around Rs. 800/- per year, which cannot by any stretch of reasoning be said to be just compensation for the loss of amenities and pleasures of life of a person who had bright future ahead. Likewise, for the same reasoning, the amount awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering too is on the lesser side. In my opinion, an amount of Rs. 2.00 lac for loss of amenities and pleasures of life and an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac for pain and sufferings would be just compensation to the claimant.
2. He, accordingly, lodged a claim for an amount of Rs. 30.00 lac along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as compensation, inter alia, for the medical and other expenses which he had incurred and would have to incur in future, for pain, agony and torture he had suffered and had to suffer throughout his life, and for being deprived of the amenities of life and his bright career ahead.
3. His claim was contested by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of vehicle no. JK02P-893. The Claims Tribunal, accordingly, put the parties to issues which read as follows:-
1. Whether an accident took place on 6.12.2001 at Patoli near Karan Palace, Jammu due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. JK02P/893 by its driver in which petitioner sustained injuries; if so of what nature? OPP
2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPP
4. Relief. O. P. Parties.
4. The claimant, besides appearing himself, examined Vikram Singh, Yashpal Gupta and Dr. M. K. Mam, Artho Surgeon of Christian Medical College, Ludhiana in support of his claim. The insurer, however, opted not to lead any evidence in the case.
5. Allowing the claim petition on the basis of its findings on the issues framed in the case, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,03,200.00 as compensation to the claimant, breakup whereof is as follows:
| 1. | Cost of medicines | Rs. 2,48,700.00 |
| 2. | Special diet | Rs. 18,000.00 |
| 3. | Transportation charges | Rs. 80,000.00 |
| 4. | Boarding and Lodging | Rs. 3,500.00 |
| 5. | Artificial Lim | Rs. 10,00,000.00 |
| 6. | Plastic surgery | Rs. 1,00,000.00 |
| 7. | Three Tyres Scooter | Rs. 88,000.00 |
| 8. | Pain and sufferings | Rs. 25,000.00 |
| 9. | Loss of amenities and Pleasures of life | Rs. 40,000.00 |
| Total | Rs. 16,03,200.00 |
6. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal made on 10.11.2004, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has come up in appeal to this Court in CIMA no. 21/2005. Dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Mukhteshwar Chib too has filed his cross appeal no. 2/2005.
7. At the time of hearing of this appeal, appellants counsel, Mr. Vishnu Gupta restricted his challenge to the award insofar as it pertained to awarding of Rs.10,00,000.00 for purchase of artificial limbs and an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 to be incurred for plastic surgery. He submitted that the claimant had not laid any claim on account of plastic surgery in the claim petition, the Tribunal had therefore erred in awarding Rs. 1.00 lac as compensation for plastic surgery.
8. Mr. R. K. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount by way of compensation for the loss of claimants future career and the amount of Rs.25,000.00 awarded for pain, suffering and agony was too less an amount in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel urged that the claimant has to remain a disabled person, all through his life, and would have to depend
