1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.176/1998 KULDEEP CHATURVEDI V. RAJ MAHAVEER SINGH & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT : MARCH 14, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Vinay Mathur, for claimant-appellant. Shri M.K. Dhakad, for respondent No.1. Shri Rakesh Bhargava, 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 December 2, 1997, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby a sum of Rs.59,538/- with interest @ 12 % p.a. was awarded. 2. On November 29, 1991 at about 9.45 a.m. the claimant-appellant met with an accident with a scooter No. RNX 8812 while he was standing on the road near Tonk Bridge as the offending scooter dashed against him and caused injuries resulting in 10% disability. 2 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 leg below knee resulting 10% 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 sys the parties and the award does not call for any interference. 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 :- 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.” 6. On application of the aforesaid guidelines in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount of compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced from Rs.59,538/- to Rs.86,000/- from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 2.2.1998. 4 7. Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award is enhanced to Rs.86,000/- 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. 8. The appeal stands disposed of with the modification of the award as stated hereinabove. (Guman Singh), J. Chauhan/