FAO No.6879 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6879 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:12.10.2011 Gaurav ...Appellant Versus Mahender Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Amrita Nagpal, Advoicate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1 Mr.RN Singal, and Mr.Vivek Singal, Advocates for the respondent-Insurance Company **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) CM No. 29711 CII of 2010 CM allowed. Delay of 181 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. FAO No.6879 of 2010 The appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal impugning the award dated 16.9.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gurgaon (for short 'the Tribunal'), in Claim Petition No.37/2008 of 17.11.2008, titled “Gaurav versus Mahender Singh and others”, with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation. Briefly stated on 11.6.2008, Anup singh (since deceased) alongwith his classmates was going to Nehru Stadium, Gurgaon for playing. They boarded a three wheeler bearing registration No.HR-55G-7343 from FAO No.6879 of 2010 (O&M) 2 village Islampur, in which some other persons were also sitting and same was being driven by its driver at a slow and moderate speed on its correct left hand side of the road. When the three wheeler reached near Devi Lal Stadium, Gurgaon on Sohna Road, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-14- 2G-1139, being driven by respondent No.1 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, from front side and after coming on wrong side of the road struck against the three wheeler. As a result of the collision, the claimant-appellant fell down and received multiple injuries. The injured were shifted to Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon by the highway ambulance. The injured- appellant filed claim petition for grant of compensation. Respondent No.3 contested the claim petition on various grounds. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,91,600/-. Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the appellant preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant states that PW11 Dr. LN Gupta has proved that the appellant suffered 80% permanent disability, which pertains to the whole body and not to a particular limb. The appellant remained admitted in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi from 12.6.2008 to 6.9.2008. He further argued that the appellant suffered from paraplegia due to injuries. The appellant was 19 years of age at the time of accident and due to paraplegia, he has become handicapped throughout life. However, the learned Tribunal awarded a meager amount of Rs.4,91,600/-. FAO No.6879 of 2010 (O&M) 3 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has contended that just and adequate compensation has been granted by the learned Tribunal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is not in dispute that due to accident, the appellant has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. He was 19 years of age at the time of accident. He has suffered 80% disability as per the disability certificate, but for the purpose of employment, the same shall constitute 100%. Apart from this, it will adversely affect the quality of life and other aspects of life including enjoyment of life. The Hon'ble Supreme Corut in RD Hattangadi vs. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd 1995 AIR (SC) 755 has held 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 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 FAO No.6879 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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. 10.It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 11. In the case Ward v. James1 it was said: "Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his 'lost years', you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened span, that is, during his expected 'years of survival'. You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered FAO No.6879 of 2010 (O&M) 5 a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to a back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet judges and juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money." 12. In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork,some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 13.This Court in the case of C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and others, AIR 1970 SC 376 in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act has observed:- “In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable." 14. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said:- "Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern.- Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which FAO No.6879 of 2010 (O&M) 6 is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases." In the present case, the appellant was an able bodied person. Due to paraplegia, his future prospects, enjoyment of life, marriage prospects etc. have been ruined and worst so, he has become dependent on others for whole life. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances and in view of RD Hattangadi's case (supra), this Court feels that the ends of justice would be meet, if another sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is granted. Ordered accordingly. Accordingly, the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.2,25,000/- shall be paid to the appellant, within 45 days from the date of FAO No.6879 of 2010 (O&M) 7 the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellant shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal till its realisation. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent. 12.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE