1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.309/1998 SMT. SANTOSH V/s SHRI HARI SINGH & Ors. and S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.310/1998 SMT. SEEMA DEVI V/s NANDLAL & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: APRIL 25, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri K.N. Tiwari, for appellants (in both cases. Shri S.P. Tyagi, for New India Insurance Comp. Ltd. (in Appeal No.309/98). Shri T.P. Sharma, for New India Insurance Company Ltd. (in Appeal No.310/98). BY THE COURT (Oral): 1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, hence, the same are being heard and decided by this common judgment. 2. Both these appeals have been filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants against the award dated February 2, 1998 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal), for enhancement of compensation. Learned Tribunal had awarded Rs.33,000/- to Smt. Satosh while Smt. Seema Devi was awarded Rs.37,000/- by way 2 of compensation. 3. Brief facts of both the appeals are that on September 21, 1993, appellants Smt. Seema Devi and Smt. Santosh were traveling in a tempo RJ-14-P-1352 from Khatipura to Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. The said tempo turned turtle near Ajmer Road causing injuries to both the appellants. Smt. Satosh sustained fracture of pelvis bone apart from other injuries and thereby sustained a permanent disability of 10% while Smt. Seema Devi sustained fracture of right arm and sustained 10% permanent disability. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that in the instant appeals the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding the adequate compensation. He submits that appellant Smt. Santosh became handicapped on account of permanent disability and she has to face difficulty in squatting and sitting on the earth and other allied activities. Likewise, Smt. Seema Devi is also facing difficulty in lifting weight from her right hand on account of the fractures and other allied activities. Learned counsel further submits that both the ladies were though house wives but they were engaged in 3 the stitching and cutting of diamonds and thus their source of livelihood was also adversely affected on account of disability sustained. That apart they have to face difficulties in their daily work for whole of the life. 5. 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. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Shri S.P. Tyagi and Shri T.P. Sharma, supported the award of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the learned Tribunal had taken into consideration all the factors after giving opportunity to adduce the evidence of both the parties during enquiry and the award passed by the learned Tribunal calls for no interference. Learned counsel placed relied in K. Venkatanarayanan V/s Balaji & Ors (2002 ACJ 1063). 4 7. In view of the rival submissions, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the pecuniary and non- pecuniary losses suffered by the claimants 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 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) 5 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 both the injured had to carry on with the permanent disability for the whole life and were rendered handicapped in selection of their future occupation and difficulty to do manual work and that they had to come across discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in their day to day life and even in discharging their normal social obligations, therefore, in view of all these factors, the amount of compensation awarded to injured Smt. Santosh, deserves to be enhanced from Rs.33,000/- to Rs.65,000/-. Likewise the compensation awarded to injured Smt. Seema Devi, deserves to be enhanced from 37,000/- to 69,000/-. 9. Accordingly, while maintaining the terms of award upto the date of filing appeals, the amount of compensation awarded to Smt. Santosh is enhanced to Rs.65,000/- and the amount of compensation awarded to Smt. Seema Devi is also enhanced to Rs.69,000/- 6 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. 16.3.1998. 10. Accordingly, the award stands modified and the appeals stand disposed of. (Guman Singh), J. Chauhan/