IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1703/2001 (Rajesh Versus M/s. Hotel Archana & Others) Date of Judgment :: 12th November, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sandeep Mathur Counsel for the appellant(s) Mr. S.R. Joshi Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation under the impugned award dated 5th July, 2001 rendered by the MACT, Jaipur, the appellant has preferred this appeal for the enhancement of the quantum of compensation. 2. Background facts, in nut shell, are thus: “That on 24th August, 1999 the appellant claimant Rajesh was going by bus bearing Registration No. RJ–26–P-149 from Chittorgarh to Jaipur to participate in a State Level Wrestling Competition. At about 2.30 PM, no sooner did the bus reach near Bhankrota, its driver endeavoured to overtake other vehicles and in the process of over-taking, an unidentified truck came from the opposite direction and caused the accident. In this accident between the bus and the unidentified truck, the right arm of the claimant Rajesh who was sitting inside the bus beside a window got crushed and was amputated from the shoulder.” 3. The learned counsel for the appellant took me through the relevant portion of the impugned award and the statements of PW-2 Rajesh and contended that the appellant lost his right hand permanently and thus suffered 90% permanent disability. The appellant was a State Wrestler and had a shining future. On account of 90% permanent disability, he has been permanently deprived of participating in wrestling competitions. Albeit, the future cannot be seen or predicted, yet it can positively be presumed that had the right hand of the claimant not been amputated, he would have participated in National and International Wrestling competitions. He was only 19 years of age at the time of accident and had a bright future, but the learned Tribunal did not keep all these factors in view and passed a lumpsum award of 3,00,000/- rupees only in his favour, which is not sufficient and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the appellant has suffered both the pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The learned counsel for the appellant cited one judgment of Kumari Ekta Khaitan reported in 1999 (2) TAC 284 (Raj.) and contended that in this case there was a minor girl aged 14 years, who became life long handicapped on account of amputation of her leg. The Tribunal awarded 2,82,213.62 rupees as compensation comprising both the pecuniary and non pecuniary damages, but this Court enhanced this amount to 5,97,213.62 rupees. The learned counsel has further submitted that it is a fit case wherein the total amount of compensation needs to be enhanced. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned award and contended that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper, therefore, the appeal of the appellant deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the injured claimant was only 19 years of age on the date of accident and he became permanently handicapped on account of amputation of his right hand that too from his shoulder. Undisputedly and undeniably he has been permanently deprived of participating in National and International Wrestling Competitions. It can be presumed that appellant had a shining future. Keeping in view the age, the nature of injury, the future prospects and other factors, the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the award rendered by the learned Tribunal does not seem to be apt and just. Sans undergoing the cumbersome exercise of computing the quantum of compensation and relying on the cited judgment of this Court and other umpteen pronouncements, I deem just and proper to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. It consists of both pecuniary and non pecuniary or special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim 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. It cannot be disputed that on account of this accident, the appellant claimant, a 19 years old boy, became life long handicapped to the extent that his right hand was amputated from his shoulder. Obviously, no amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. Therefore, whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for serious injuries and permanent disablement suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injuries and the disability 'so far as the 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. As Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Versus Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd and others reported in 1995 ACJ 366, the determination of the amount of compensation in the cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. It cannot be lost sight of that the victim of the accident was a young boy, whose hand from the shoulder was amputated and he suffered shattered physical frame, which would affect his social life and future prospects as he was a State Level Wrestler. 6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated here-in- above. 7. There shall be no oder as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1703/2001 (Rajesh Versus M/s. Hotel Archana & Others) Date of Order :: 12th November, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sandeep Mathur Counsel for the appellant(s) Mr. S.R. Joshi Counsel for the respondents For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated here-in- above. (See separate judgment). (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. DK/-