1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.166/1999 SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL V. SHRI BHANWAR SINGH & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT : APRIL 8, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri K.N. Tiwari, for claimant-appellant. Shri Vinod Tyagi, for respondent No.2. BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been preferred for enhancement of the award by the claimant-appellant against judgment dated January 8, 1999, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims and Rajasthan Sate Co-operative Tribunal, Jaipur, (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby a sum of Rs.48,000/- was awarded to the injured. 2. On October 18, 1998 at about 6.15 P.M. the claimant-appellant was going on his scooter from Baees Godam to his house Jawarhar Nagar and he near Ram Bagh dashed by the offending vehicle Car RST 1024 and sustained injuries on left wrist and was found disability by 6%. Leaned counsel has argued that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation on lower side and failed to 2 notice that the appellant was a person of 23 years of age and on account of the said disability, he is handicapped. 3. Leaned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award the adequate compensation in view of the injuries sustained by the injured in his left wrist resulting 6% disability. 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. 4. Per contra, leaned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation after holding the enquiry and the evidence adduced by the parties and the award does not call for any interference. 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 :- 3 “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 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.” 5. On application of the aforesaid guidelines in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is revealed that the injured has sustained 6% permanent disability and thereby his wrist movement is hampered and he has to face difficulty in performing his 4 routine functions of his daily life. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced from Rs.48,000/- to Rs.80,000/- from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 7.2.1999. 6 Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award is enhanced to Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 6% 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. 7. The appeal stands disposed of with the modification of the award as stated hereinabove. (Guman Singh), J. Chauhan/