S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

( 2 ) THE claimant-appellant, feeling aggrieved by an award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal whereunder as against his claim for a compensation of an amount of rs. 9,00,000 on the ground of permanent disability being suffered by him as a result of the injuries leading up to the amputation of his leg from just above the knee, had been awarded a sum of only Rs. 50,000 against the owner and the driver exonerating the insurer, had filed an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act confining his claim to Rs. 95,000 only, which was dismissed by a learned single judge vide the impugned order.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved, claimant-appellant has now come up in Letters Patent Appeal seeking reversal of the impugned order.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge in the impugned order has affirmed the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal determining the amount of compensation at a figure of Rs. 50,000 recoverable from respondent Nos. 1 and 2, owner and driver respectively exonerating the insurer, respondent No. 3, from liability in regard to the payment of the compensation.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal in its impugned order has found that the accident resulting in the permanent disablement of the claimantappellant had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor which was the offending vehicle. It has further been found that Babu Ram, the claimant, was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and his income as a labourer has been determined at a figure of Rs. 1,000 per month. For the purposes of computation of the net income per annum excluding Rs. 500 per month as personal expenditure the amount of yearly income has been determined to be at a figure of Rs. 6,000.

( 6 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances the tribunal has proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation holding that the guidelines referred to in section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be taken to be relevant. The quantum of compensation to which the appellant was found entitled has been determined to be Rs. 50,000 only.

( 7 ) SO far as the question in regard to the exoneration of the insurer, respondent no. 3, from the liability in regard to the payment of compensation was concerned the Tribunal had clearly found that the tractor at the time of accident was being used for a non-agricultural purpose. Kallu, the deceased as well as the appellant were found to be travelling in the trolley, and had been allowed to travel either as a passenger on payment of fare or as a gratuitous passenger. In either case, however, the terms and conditions subject to which the offending vehicle had been insured stood clearly violated. The Tribunal found an additional ground to have been established for exonerating the insurer from the liability in regard to the payment of compensation which was to the effect that the offending vehicle had been used for business purposes, carrying the bricks from the brick-klin of Kamptaprasad Shivhare.

( 8 ) THE learned single Judge has affirmed the findings returned by the Tribunal against the appellant.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings of the learned single Judge on the question in regard to the quantum of compensation as well as the question relating to exoneration of the insurer in regard to liability in payment of compensation. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned and enhancement the appellant has claimed an amount of Rs. 95,000 as indicated in the memo of appeal.

( 10 ) IT may be noticed that the Apex court in its decision in the case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), had held:"broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are cap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document