Advocates:
['BASANT JAIN', '', 'AWADH TRIPATHI', 'INDIRA TRIPATHI', 'YOGESH PANDEY', 'SUNIL SAHU', 'AMAN KESHARWANI', 'DR SANJEET SHARMA', 'VARUNENDRA MISHRA', '', 'RAJ AWASTHI', 'ANAND GUPTA']

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.442 of 2006

Nilay Kumar Jayswal, son of Deep Singh, aged about 42 years,

resident of Rest House, Civil Line, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District

Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

versus

1. Vinod Khandelwal, son of Shri L. Khandelwal,

2. Meera Devi Khandelwal, W/o Shri Vinod Khandelwal,

Both are R/o Sadar Bazar, Chameli Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil and

District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Opposite of Amar Talkies,

Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Appellant

:

Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate

For Respondent No.3

:

Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice

Judgment on Board

2.12.2016

1.

This appeal for enhancement of compensation by the

claimant/Appellant is directed against the award dated 7.1.2006

passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in

Claim Case No.517 of 2002, whereby the Claims Tribunal has

awarded compensation of Rs.1,19,000/- to the claimant.

2.

The undisputed facts are that an accident took place on 29.8.2001. In

this accident, the claimant suffered injuries and the main injury was

fracture to the left hip joint. He was admitted in the hospital on

29.8.2001 and remained admitted there upto 26.9.2001. During his

stay in the hospital, he was operated by Dr. Iqbal Parvez (PW-2) on

4.9.2001 and a surgical implant was inserted in his hip joint. The

disability has been assessed at 40%. The Learned Claims Tribunal

has assessed the income of the claimant/Appellant at Rs.15,000/- per

2

year and assessed compensation accordingly.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Learned Claims

Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the income of the Appellant only at

Rs.15,000/- per year. She submits that the Appellant was aged about

42 years and it was his evidence that he used to work as Munshi and

go to various shops to maintain their accounts. The Learned Claims

Tribunal was of the view that since none of the owner of the shops

where the Appellant/claimant was working as Munshi was produced,

no reliance can be placed on the same. Even if that be so, one has to

consider this fact that the claimant/Appellant was aged about 42 years

and he had a family to support. He was an able bodied person and

even in the year 2001, the income of any able bodied person would

not be less than Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day. The Supreme Court

has also held that where the claimant is aged between 40 to 50 years,

30% must be added to his income on account of future prospects.

Even if a very conservative view is taken, a labourer in the year 2001

would have been earning Rs.150/- per day, but a labourer may not

earn on each and every day. Therefore, I assess monthly income of

the claimant/Appellant at Rs.3,500/- per month. Adding 30% for future

prospects, the figure works out to Rs.4,550/- per month, which is

rounded off to Rs.4,500/- per month.

4.

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

3

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.

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 attem