1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.15/1998 GAJRAJ SINGH V/s SHYAMLAL & OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: MAY 02, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Vinay Mathur, for appellant/claimant. Shri R.M. Jain on behalf of Shri A.K.Bhargava, for respondent No.1. Shri K.N. Tiwari on behalf of Shri Akbar Khan, for National Insurance Company. BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation against the award dated April 1, 1997 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second, Ajmer and Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer (for short “the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. On September 10, 1990 at about 3.00 P.M., appellant was going by tractor RSE 2093 from village Badali to Wider Pulliya, truck RJS 7475 driven by respondent No.1 dashed against the tractor resulting death of 2 Bhagat Singh and injuries to Kailash Kanwar, Surendra Singh and Gajraj Singh. Injured Gajraj Singh is a young man of 30 years of age who sustained injuries on his right leg ilium bone thereby he sustained 40% permanent disability. Injured Gajraj Singh had to be confined in hospital for nine months. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that in the instant appeal, the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding the adequate compensation. He submits that 40% disability of the injured was found by the doctor on account of injuries. Learned counsel submits that injured Gajraj Singh has appeared in the witness box and has deposed that he remained in hospital for nine months and has been unfit to carry out the agricultural operations. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation without considering the various factors based on concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995 ACJ 366. 3 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. In view of the rival submissions, it may be noted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the pecuniary and non- pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra), as under :- “9. Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non- pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for 4 the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,frustration and mental stress in life.” 6. On application of the aforesaid guidelines in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is revealed from the disability certificate as well as the deposition of Gajraj injured that on account of disability, his movements have been restricted and he is not in a position to carry on the agricultural operations and other allied activities. The claimant appellant had to carry on with the permanent disability for the whole life and was rendered handicapped in selection of his future occupation and that he had to come across discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in his day to day life and even in discharging his normal social obligations. Therefore, in view of all these factors, the amount of 5 compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- , from the date of filing of appeal. 7. Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award up to the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, with interest @ 6 percent p.a. from the date of appeal with the condition that failure to make payment under the award within a period of three months from this order shall entail interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 14.7.1997 8. With the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Guman Singh), J. Chauhan/