Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. P. Naik and G. P. Singh, JJ.
VINOD KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
VED MITRA VOHRA - Respondents
Misc. First Appeal 143 Of 1967
Decided On : 12/10/1969
Where the injured person himself sues as plaintiff, some evidence, possibly of medical men, must be led if he claims damages for loss of expectation of life to show that the injury has shortened his normal expectation of life. The testimony of the medical men may turn out to be incorrect, and some caution may be necessary before accepting their evidence. (1934) All. FR Rep. 200, (1937) 3 All. ER 359 referred to.
Damages for loss of expectation of life are awarded only when expectation of life is shortened as a result of the injuries and are to be assessed by putting a money value on the prospective balance of happiness in the years that the injured might have otherwise lived. On the other hand, damages for loss of amenities of life, which is a separate head of damages, are to be awarded when the injured is deprived for the period he lives of ordinary experiences and enjoyment of life. (1964) AC 326 relied on. [Para 5
(2) Tort - damages - personal injury - assessment of damages - matters to be considered by Courts - comparable cases should also be adhered to - what are comparable cases.
The task of assessment of damages for non-pecuniary damages in personal injury action is a difficult one, for human suffering resulting from any serious bodily injury cannot from its very nature be valued in terms of money. But as the injured can be awarded only monetary compensation, the Courts make an endeavour as best as they can to quantify non-pecuniary damage in terms of money having regard to the injury and the damage resulting from it. In the process of application, the wide discretion that the Courts exercise in making awards of compensation, like any other judicial discretion, has canalized itself into a set of rules. These rules are : (1) The amount of compensation awarded must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation; (2) Regard must be had to award made in comparable cases; and (3) The sums awarded should to a considerable extent be conventional. It is only by adherence to these self imposed rules that the Courts can decide like cases in like manner and bring about a measure of predictability of their awards. Case law discussed. [Para 7
Before cases can be used as comparable cases, they must bear a reasonable measure of similarity; it is necessary to ensure that in main essentials the facts of one case must bear comparison with the facts of another before any comparison between the awards in the respective cases can fairly or profitably be made. (1964) 2 All. ER 925 relied on. [Para 8
(3) Motor Vehicles Art, 1939 - S. 100-B - interest on damages - no interest prior to the suit can be awarded - interest may be awarded from the - date of the claim or date of the award. [Para 10
(4) Interest Act, 1839 - S. 1 - suit for recovery of un-liquidated damages - interest cannot be allowed prior to the suit. [Para 10
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 - S. 34 - interest under - may be awarded on un-liquidated damages from date of the suit or decree - power to award interest may be exercised by the Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 110 - B.
Under section 34 of the Code interest may be awarded from the date of the suit or decree. This provision applies even when the suit is for un-liquidated damages. AIR 1946 Bom. 1, AIR 1926 Mad. 1021 & AIR 1924 Cal 637 relied on. [Para 10
Although section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not in terms apply to a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, the principles of the section apply and the Tribunal in a proper case has power to allow interest from the date of the application to the date of the award and/or from the date of the award to the date of payment. [Para 11
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an award made by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, jabalpur. The appellant Vinod Kumar Shrivastava was knocked down by a motor truck on 10th March, 1963 and received bodily injuries. The truck at the relevant time was owned by the first respondent, was driven by his driver the second respondent and was insured with the third respondent. The appellant claimed before the Tribunal a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation against the respondents in respect of bodily injuries suffered by him in the accident. By the award under appeal the claim has been allowed to the extent of Rs. 5,000/ -. The appellant has come up to this Court for enhancement of the award.
( 2 ) THE appellant at the time of the accident was seventeen years of age and was a student. He was knocked down from behind while going on foot and his left leg came under the wheels of the motor truck resulting in a compound fracture of lower one-third Tibia and Fibula bones. The leg was immobilised from toe to thigh and was kept in plaster for nearly three months. The appellant was examined by dr. Koshal, Head of the Department of Surgery, Medical College Jabalpur, on 28th november, 1966. Dr. Koshal found that the fracture had healed well and there was no mal-union. But he also found that there was wasting of the muscle of the lower third of the left leg on the medial side, wasting, of the left quadriceps and limitation of active flexion of the left knee and left foot. According to Dr. Koshal, the appellant will have partial disability of the use of the left ankle joint and the left lower limb in that he will not be able to take part in heavy outdoor games and heavy physical exercises. Dr. Koshal has further stated that the appellant is likely to develop early osteoarthritis changes in the ankle joint which may become painful in middle age and later life. The appellant even after the accident continued to be a member of the National Cadet Corps which goes to show that he is not handicapped in walking or in taking part in normal drill exercises. His career though interrupted for some time has not been affected and he has been able to prosecute his normal studies. It is pointed out to us from the statement of the appellant that he cannot take part in outdoor games and cannot ride a bicycle. This part of his statement appears to us to be an exaggeration. May be that he cannot play the games or ride a bicycle as well as he did before, but it is not believable from the nature of the injuries and the statement of Dr. Koshal that he cannot at all play the outdoor games or cannot ride a bicycle. In our opinion, the evidence of Dr. Koshal does not show that the permanent disability resulting from the injuries is of any appreciable nature.
( 3 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal in awarding Rs. 5,000/- as damages has not taken into account the following heads of damages: (i) Loss of expectation of life; (ii) Loss of amenity; and (iii)Future pain and suffering, ( 4 ) AS regards the argument that the Tribunal has not taken into account damage under the head "loss of expectation of life", it must be noticed that there is no evidence whatsoever led by the appellant to show that his expectation of life has been reduced by the injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, in this connection referred to Benham v. Gambling, (1941) 1 All ER 7 (HL) and has argued that as according to that case "the thing to be valued is not the prospect of length of days, but the prospect of a predominantly happy life" all that the injured person need show is that his future life because of the injuries will not be as happy as before and he need not prove that his expectation of life has been reduced by the injuries. This argument proceeds on a complete misconception, in the leading case of Flint v. Lovell, 1934 All ER Rep 200, the plaintiff Flint was sixty-nine years of ag
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
