Point of law : Principles regarding the determination of just compensation, contemplated under the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’) are well settled. Injuries caused deprivation to the body, which entitles the claimant to claim damages. It is impossible to compensate human sufferings and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the MV Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages so that the claimant or the victim may be compensated for the loss suffered by him.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. This appeal, at the behest of the injured-claimant, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 361 of 2004 (Vishal Gupta vs. Director IGFRI) awarding a sum of Rs. 3,29,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a motor accident claim petition was filed by claimant-Visual Gupta, who sustained serious injuries in the accident in question. The averments of petition are that on 23.04.2004, the claimant was going from Chitra crossing towards B.K.D. crossing at 11:00 am on Motorcycle No. UP-93F-7585. As soon as he reached Rishabh hotel a Bus No. UP-90C-0414 hit his motorcycle from behind due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The claimant was taken to the hospital. His condition was serious. Due to sustaining serious injuries in the legs, his left leg was operated thrice and at last, it was amputated from thigh. The claimant became permanently disabled to the extent of 80%. He remained hospitalized for a long period and incurred the expenditure of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards medical expenses. It is also alleged in petition that claimant was student of final year engineering. Due to sustaining aforesaid injuries in accident, his future became dark. Alongwith his studies, he was earning Rs. 10,000/- by doing job work in different institutions.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company as well as perused the record.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the learned Tribunal also is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on it. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

5. Before computation of compensation, it is worth mentioning that the principles regarding the determination of just compensation, contemplated under the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’) are well settled. Injuries caused deprivation to the body, which entitles the claimant to claim damages. It is impossible to compensate human sufferings and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the MV Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages so that the claimant or the victim may be compensated for the loss suffered by him. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of injury, the claimant may suffer consequential loss such as loss of earnings as well as future earnings, medical expenditure, special diet and attendant charges etc. Victim may suffer non-pecuniary damages also in the form of loss of pleasure of life by particular limb of the body. In this way, damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary. The Court/Tribunal should keep in mind that compensation awarded must be just compensation because the damages assess for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life.

6. In Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand, 2020 (0) AIJELSC 65725, the Apex Court has quoted pertinent observations from a very old case Philips vs. Western Railway Company, (1874) 4 QBD 406 as under:

“You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered.” Besides, th