Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, CJ.
Biswajit Debroy - Appellant
Versus
Arpita Chakraborty - Respondent
M.A.C. App. No. 50 of 2009Decided On : 13-01-2015
For the Petitioner: D.K. Biswas and G.K. Nama, Advs.
For the Respondents: P. Gautam, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of just compensation for personal injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered by the claimant.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Determination - Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 - The court discussed the principles for determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing the assessment of damages for personal injuries, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. The court referred to various legal provisions and case laws to highlight the factors to be considered in assessing compensation, such as medical expenses, loss of earnings, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and future discomfort in life. The court emphasized the need for substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered, while also cautioning against assessing compensation in a liberal fashion. The judgment enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the claimant's injuries and the impact on his future life.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant appealed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, including the severing of his arm and other serious injuries. The claimant, a government employee, sought higher compensation due to the impact on his future earning capacity and loss of amenities of life.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and proceeded to assess the compensation under various heads, including medical expenses, transport expenses, attendant charges, loss of income, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life. The court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,04,000 and directed the insurance company to deposit the awarded amount with interest. The court also directed the claimant to provide information on any reimbursement received from his employer for medical and transportation expenses.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of just compensation for the claimant's injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered by the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles for assessing compensation in personal injury cases, considering factors such as medical expenses, loss of earnings, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and future discomfort in life. The court emphasized the need for substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered, while cautioning against assessing compensation in a liberal fashion.
Final Decision: The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 5,04,000 and directed the insurance company to deposit the awarded amount with interest. The court also directed the claimant to provide information on any reimbursement received from his employer for medical and transportation expenses.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, CJ.1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the award dated 25th April, 2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in T.S.(MAC) No. 54 of 2008 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,70,757/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimant under the following heads:
2. Sri D.K. Biswas, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the award is very much on the lower side and prays that the same may be suitably enhanced.
3. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 paisa.
4. 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.
5. 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 giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards."
6. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases:
"Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awar
