Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 348
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehtab S.Gill and Rakesh Kumar Jain JJ.
Ram Kiran Goyal
Versus
Sub Divisional Engineer, Mechanical
Decided On : FEBRUARY 6, 2008
Accident Law--Compensation--Pecuniary damages and Non pecuniary damage--Scope of--Explained.
Headnote:(A) Accident Law--Pecuniary damage may include expenses incurred by the claimants; (i) Medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. (Para 13)
(B) Accident Law--Non pecuniary damages may include--Damages for mental and physical shock , pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future ; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit, (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life"--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(C) Accident Law--Appellant suffered 55% disability--Compensation assessed @ Rs.2000/- per every 1% disability--Interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition awarded--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Para 14)
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. This is an appeal by the claimant/appellant against the award of the learned Single Judge dated February 27, 2001, whereby he has been awarded Rs. One lac with 12% interest per annum for the injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident.
2. The appellant/claimant was travelling in a car bearing registration No.DIC-317 on December 14,1987, when he reached near village Assalwas on National Highway No. 8, a truck bearing registration No.HNE.7315 driven rashly and negligently by its driver Madan Lal-respondent No. 4, suddenly took a turn towards right without giving any signal, as a result of which, the car crushed into the rear right side of the truck and the appellant received serious multiple injuries on both the legs, other parts of his body and his teeth were also broken. After the accident, he was given first aid at Civil, Hospital, Bawal, from where he was shifted to North Delhi Nursing Home, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), Rewari claiming an amount of Rs. 6 lacs as compensation.
3. On notice, the respondents put in appearance and filed two written statements, i.e. one by respondent Nos. l, 2 and 3 and another by respondent No. 5 & 6 Factum of accident was admitted, however, negligence was denied. The appellant also filed rejoinder and reiterated the stand taken in the claim petition.
4. On January 16,1990, the Tribunal framed following issues:
1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HNE-7315 or of Car No.DIC-317, or of both? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and from whom? OPP
3. Relief:
5. The appellant appeared as PW1 and tendered into evidence medical certificate and other related documents, whereas on behalf of the respondents, Madan Lal-respondent No. 4, driver of the offending truck appeared as RW1.
6. The Tribunal vide its award dated April 18,1991, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the appellant and against the respondents holding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. On issue No. 2, which pertains to assessment of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000A with 12% interest per annum.
7. Dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, appellant came up in the first appeal before this Court.
8. Vide its award, dated February 27,2001, the, learned Single Judge assessed the compensation as Rs. 50,000/- on account of permanent disability, Rs. 25,000/- towards pains and sufferings and agony, Rs. 15,000/- towards medicines and Rs. 10,000/- for future loss of income. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. One lac was assessed with 12% interest per annum.
9. Still not satisfied with the aforesaid amount, the appellant has now come up in this Letters Patent Appeal and has claimed that he should be awarded compensation as claimed by him in the claim petition.
10. Mr. Ajay Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in ignoring the document Ex. P-18, the disability certificate given by Dental Surgeon showing permanent disability to the tune of 70% to 90% on the ground that the same has been obtained from a private doctor. He has further argued that it has also not been taken into consideration that before the accident the injured claimant was running a plastic industry having monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- and was paying Rs. 19,000/- as income tax per year. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded even with respect to the accepted disability certificate Ex.P-31 was inadequate and should have been awarded for every 1% disability. He has referred to a judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. and submitted that while fixing an amount of compensation to a victim of ac
