1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.1738/2005 arising out of Claim No.1829/01 BHANWAR LAL V/s SATYA NARAIN & OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: MAY 05, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Sandeep Mathur, for appellant. Shri Sandeep Jain, for respondents. Shri D.S. Rathore, for United India Insurance Copany Limited. BY THE COURT : (Oral) This appeal has come up for admission. Both the parties agreed to dispose of the case at admission stage. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellant for enhancement of compensation against the award dated March 19, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, (for short “the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs.4,32,584/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. On March 23, 2000 around 7.30 P.M., deceased and injured were going in tractor 2 RJ-08 R 3332. The tractor was dashed by truck RJ-06 G 0856. The offending truck was being driven by respondent Satyanarain. In the accident Parma Ram, Mahendra, Jagdish, Mst. Bhoori, Mst. Dholi, Mst. Gulab and Mst. Gheesi died and Sanjay @ Santu, Ramratan, Chhotu Lal, Mst. Bhoori, Ramesh, Bajrang Lal, Mst. Kajodi, Raju Lal, Ramkaran, Bhanwar Lal S/o Chhotu Keer and Bhanwar Lal S/o Ramdeo Raigor received serious and simple injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that injured Bhanwar Lal S/o Ramdeo Raigor aged 30 years has sustained 100% permanent disability of paralysing lower left part of the body, he is not in a position to get up and shall have to be dependent on others for whole of life even for going to toilet. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that in the instant appeal the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding adequate compensation. Learned counsel submits that the injured was engaged with agricultural operations and he was earning his livelihood by manual work on daily wages and his income was Rs.2500/- per month but the learned Tribunal has assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages at the 3 rate of Rs.1800/- per month. 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. 6. Per contra, Shri D.S. Rathore learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Limited and Shri Sandeep Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the award of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the accident and after recording evidence of both the sides during enquiry, rightly arrived at the conclusion and calls for no interference. 7. 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 4 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.” 8. On application of the aforesaid guidelines in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is revealed that the injured was of 30 years age at the time of accident and shall have to carry on with the 5 permanent disability for the whole life and on account of accident, the injured has been crippled for whole of live as his lower half part of the body has paralysed and on account of injury sustained in the head as well as at the back bone and has suffered 100% permanent disability and he has 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 compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced from Rs.4,32,584/- to Rs.5,82,584/- from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 31.5.2005. 9. Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award is enhanced to Rs.5,82,584/- 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 i.e. 31.5.2005. 10. The award stands modified and appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 6 (Guman Singh), J. chauhan/