1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.718/1998 NAHAR SINGH V/s SHRI NOOR MOHAMMAD & Ors. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.719/1998 HARI PRASAD V/s SHRI NOOR MOHAMMAD & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT : APRIL 11, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri K.N. Tiwari,for claimants-appellants. Shri Vinay Mathur, for respondents. BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. Both these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been preferred by the claimants appellants for enhancement of the claim against judgment dated May 6, 1998, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar-lake, District, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby a sum of Rs.35,000/- to Nahar Singh and Rs.63,000/- to Hari Prasad were awarded by way of compensation. 2. On December 31, 1987 at about 7.00 A.M. appellant Nahar Singh was going by his Scooter and Hari Prasad was sitting behind him. When they reached to Ashalpur Railway Station, they were dashed by mini Bus RND 2170 which was being driven by respondent No.1. 2 Both the appellants sustained injuries, Nahar Singh sustained fracture in his right leg below the knee with 10% permanent disability while appellant Hari Prasad sustained fracture of femur bone of left leg and sustained 25% permanent disability. 3. Leaned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award the adequate compensation in view of the injuries sustained by injured Nahar Singh (10% disability) and Hari Prasad (25% disability). Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants 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. 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 claimants 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.” On application of the aforesaid guidelines in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is revealed that injured Nahar Singh had sustained 10% permanent disability on account of fracture in his tibia bone of his right leg and 4 thereby hampering the functions of the leg by 10% for which he has to face difficulties in performing his routine functions of his daily life. Therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be raised from Rs.35,0000/- to Rs. 55,000/-. Likewise, injured Hari Prasad sustained 25% permanent disability on account of fracture on his femur bone and he has handicapped for fast walking, squatting and carrying weight. Therefore, he has to face difficulty in performing his routine functions of his daily life. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced from Rs.63,000/- to Rs.1,17,000/-. APPEAL No.718/1998 Accordingly, the amount of the award to the appellant Nahar singh is enhanced from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.55,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 6.7.1998 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. 6.7.1998. APPELLANT HARI PRASAD Accordingly, the amount of the award of injured Hari Prasad is enhanced from Rs.63,000/- to Rs.1,17,000/- with interest @ 5 6% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 6.7.1998 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. 6.7.1998. 8. Both the appeals stand disposed of with the modifications in the award as stated hereinabove. (Guman Singh),J. Chauhan/