The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for motor accidents, distinguishing between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and exercising guesswork to determine just compensation based on the principles outlined in the R.D. Hattangadi case.

1. Both these Civil First Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 26th of December’ 2006 (for short hereinafter impugned award) passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Poonch in claim petition titled Miss Mousami Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., whereby an amount of Rs.8,77,027.29 paisa with interest @ 6% p.a came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against Union of India from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, on the grounds taken in the appeals.

2. The appellants have questioned the quantum of the compensation in both the appeals.

3. Grievance of Union of India-appellant-judgment debtors is that the compensation awarded is on the higher side while the grievance of the claimant-award holder is that the compensation awarded is meager.

4. This judgment will govern both the appeals.

BRIEF FACTS:

5. The claimant Miss Mousami Sharma became the victim of a vehicular accident on 2nd of May’ 2000 caused by Mr. Rajinder Kumar, driver of Union of India while driving Tipper bearing No. 97E61795 (GREF) rashly and negligently at old Bus stand, Poonch. F.I.R no. 47 under Sections 279/337 Ranbir Penal Code (for short R.P.C) came to be lodged and registered against the said driver. Claimant sustained injuries on legs, eyes, uterus and stomach. Both the legs of claimant were fractured, left eye was totally damaged rendering her blind by one eye for ever, uterus and stomach were ruptured and also sustained serious injuries on the right eye. She was taken to District Hospital, Poonch and was referred to Government Medical College Jammu for treatment. She was unable to move for a pretty long time, her uterus was removed, she was unable to pass urine in normal course, and she has become handicapped forever. Petitioner claimed Rs. 10 Lacs as compensation in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

6. Union of India- Judgment debtor no.1 & 2, non applicant before the Tribunal, filed the objections and resisted the claim petition.

7. Following issues came to be framed:-

"1. Whether the accident has been caused by the respondent no.3 at Bus stand Poonch on 2.5.2000, while driving the vehicle No. 97E61795 due to rash and negligent driving? OPP

2. In case issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner received grievous injuries as a result of the said accident and suffered permanent disablement of eye, leg and uterus etc. ? OPP

3. In case issue No.2 is proved in affirmative, how much compensation is payable to the petitioner from the respondent?

4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to maintain the present petition? OPRs.

5. Whether the respondents 1 & 2 are vicariously liable to pay the compensation for the act of the respondent no.3.

6. To what relief the petitioner is entitled to? OPP

8. The claimants have examined PWs Ashok Kumar, Gulshan Kumar, Bakshi Surjeet Kumar, Dr. Sakhi Mohd., Dr. Anil Bhalla and Dr. Vipin Bhanotra. Statement of claimant was also recorded.

9. Union of India-Judgment debtor have examined PWs T.D. Sharma, P.K. Mitra and Mohd Akbar in support of the case.

10. All the witnesses examined by the claimant have deposed that the driver has driven the offending vehicle `Tipper’ belonging to GREF, rashly and negligently and caused the accident on the 2nd of May’ 2000. Claimant-petitioner is the victim of the said accident, rendered her blind by left eye, sustained fractures on both the legs, injuries on right eye, stomach and her uterus came to be removed, which has made her life hell for ever. She is not in a position to contract marriage.

11. Union of India-judgment debtor-appellants in appeal no. 61/2007 have not disputed the factum of accident causing grievous injuries to the claimant due to rash and negligent driving of their employee-driver.

12. Viewed thus, claimant has proved that Sh. Rajinder Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle belonging to Union of India, has driven the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident causin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document