1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.757/95 IQURAMUDDIN V/s MADAN SINGH & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: FEBRUARY 08, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri K. N. Tiwari, for appellant/claimant. Shri Tej Prakash Sharma for respondents. BY THE COURT : 1. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation against the order dated April 15, 1995 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. was awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. On March 14, 1988 around 8.00 p.m., the appellant/claimant who was workman in G.D. Agro Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur on monthly wages of Rs.1,000/- per month, met with an accident by a car coming from behind which was also hit by a truck at Road No.8, Vishwa-karma Industrial Area, Jaipur and 2 suffered grievous injuries. The appellant/claimant sustained two fractures in right femur, had to be hospitalised and his leg was plastered twice for 1½ month each time and was found with 18% permanent disability resulting in shortening of leg, difficultly on fast walking, squatting, cycling and even working while standing. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that in the instant appeal the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding the adequate compensation. He submits that 18% disability of the injured was found by the doctor on account of two fractures on the right leg of the complainant which resulted in shortening of leg causing difficulty in fast walking and squatting. 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. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has also relied upon in the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.449/1993, Ratan Lal v/s Salgaram 3 & Ors., along with other two connected matters, decided on 18.11.2005 on the point. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Tej Prakash Sharma argued that the judgment cited in Ratan Lal's case (supra) is not applicable in view of the facts of the case as the award in the instant case has been passed by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. Learned counsel has also relied upon in Babu Althaf v/s Farida Abba Khasim & Ors. (I (2004 ACC 766 (DB), in support of his contention on the point of quantum of compensation in case of disability. 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 :- “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 4 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, it is revealed that the injured was of 21 years age at the time of accident. He was a temporary employee in a private concern and was earning Rs.1,000/- per month and was unmarried and had to carry on with the permanent disability for the whole life and was rendered handicapped in selection of his future occupation on account of shortening of leg and difficulty to do any standing work and that he had to come across discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in his day to day life and even in 5 discharging his normal social obligations. Therefore, in view of all these factors, the amount of compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 24.7.1995. 7. Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeal, the amount of the award is enhanced to Rs.1 lac with interest @ 9% 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 @ 12% p.a. from the date of appeal. 8. The award stand modified accordingly. (Guman Singh), J. Chauhan/