Order

1. By way of filing the instant misc. appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, Jaipur in MAC Case No.110/2006 by which an award of Rs.74,605/- has been passed in favour of the claimants.

2. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant claimant (for short “the claimant”) has approached this Court by way of filing the instant misc. appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred on 10.06.2004, when the claimant along-with others was travelling in a Scorpio Car bearing No. RJ 14 SU 1448 and while they were coming from Rewari to Khatushyam, on the way, one truck bearing No.RJ O7 G 6054 caused the accident by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, wherein the claimant sustained injuries and fracture on his skull and hip bone, hence, he approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) seeking suitable amount of compensation.

4. After hearing both sides, learned Tribunal awarded compensation for a tune of Rs.74,605/- in favour of the claimant under various heads.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that on account of the aforesaid, multiple injuries and a fracture was sustained by the claimant, he remained under treatment and on leave for a period of six months, hence, he has been deprived of the amenities and suffered mental agony and under this head, very meagre and petty amount of Rs.13,000/- has been awarded. Learned counsel submits that looking to 13.1% permanent disability of the claimant, the aforesaid amount is quite meagre, which requires suitable enhancement.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submitted that the claimant is a Government servant and there is no break in his service, hence, under these circumstances, considering the overall facts and the documents available on the record, an appropriate compensation has been awarded, which needs no interference by this Court and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected.

7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

8. This fact is not in dispute that the claimant has met with an accident on the fateful day and sustained multiple injuries and fractures on his skull and hip bone. This fact is also not in dispute that he remained under treatment at SMS Hospital, Jaipur for around one month and he remained on leave for a period of six months. This fact is also not in dispute that the claimant is a Government servant, but on account of six months leave, there is no break in his service. But looking to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the aforesaid accident and since he remained under treatment for a considerable time, which is more than six months and the amount awarded under the head of fiscal pain and mental agony, i.e., Rs.13,000/- is inadequate, which is liable to be enhanced.

9. Pain and suffering would be categorised as a non-pecuniary loss, as it is incapable of being arithmetically calculated. Therefore, when compensation is to be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account, including the age of the victim and unusual deprivation, that the victim has suffered.

10. Though, no specific criteria has been prescribed in this regard, but the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgmen