The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for substantial damages to compensate for personal injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. The court emphasized the difficulty in converting physical and mental loss into monetary terms and the need for a judicious assessment of damages to provide just compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur, dated 21.08.2006 whereby an amount of Rs. 68,988/- was awarded to the claimant under the following heads:

Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner has filed the present petition for enhancement of compensation. Ms. Pratima Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has very competently argued the matter and submits that the amount awarded for pain and suffering and medical expenses is extremely low. She also submits that the claimant being a labourer, his earning capacity has been affected by more than 5% and, therefore, the compensation should be suitably enhanced. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company submits that the award is reasonable calling for no enhancement.

2. Since the only issue involved in this appeal is the amount of compensation to which the claimant is entitled to. I am only discussing that portion of the amount. The claimant was earning Rs. 2,700/- per month and this fact is proved on record. He was aged about 30 years. It is also not disputed that he remained hospitalized from the date of accident i.e. from 27.03.2002 to 10.04.2002 i.e. for a period of 14 days. The claimant remained under treatment for a long period thereafter. The learned Tribunal has held that the claimant remained under treatment upto 3rd May, 2004 as an outpatient.

3. I am constrained to observe that the learned Tribunal did not at all understand the principles with regard to quantification of damages in motor accident claim's case and, therefore, I am constrained to assess the compensation afresh.

4. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise.

5. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few.

6. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), are very pertinent:

Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as g