Reserved On : 23/01/2025 Pronounced On : 06/02/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2866 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

VICKY DINESHBHAI (MINOR) THROUGH GUARDIAN Versus BALVANDSINGH HANUBHA RANA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Let me start with this present judgment by extracting para 18 of Baby Sakshi Greola Versus Manzoor Ahmad Simon And Another, 2024 (12) JT SC 623, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court re-quoted few paragraphs of judgment in case of Kajal V. Jagdish Chand And Others, 2020 4 SCC 413, which extracted and established principle to be applied while assessing the compensation. It reads as under:-

“18. This Court, in the said case, referred to a number of cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. Cases from foreign jurisdiction as well as cases of this Court were relied upon to extract the principles to be applied while assessing compensation. It would be apposite to refer to the following paragraphs of the said case:

8. In Phillips v. London & South Western Railway Co. [Phillips v. London & South Western Railway Co., (1879) [L.R.] 5 Q.B.D. 78 (CA)] , Field, J., while emphasising that damages must be full and adequate, held thus : (QBD p. 79)

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, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure.

9. In Mediana, In re [Mediana, In re, 1900 AC 113 (HL)] , Lord Halsbury held : (AC pp. 116-17)

Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case : how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. In truth, I think it would be very arguable to say that a person would be entitled to no damages for such things. What manly mind cares about pain and suffering that is past? But nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given.

10. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard [H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1964 AC 326 : (1963) 2 WLR 1359 (HL)] , are very pertinent : (AC p. 346) 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 s