Case: Tejinder Singh Gujral Vs. Inderjit Singh

examined and treated him and awarded compensation under different heads. In regard to his future loss of income, the Tribunal noticed his income tax returns for the financial year prior to his meeting with the accident as also the year in question. The annual loss to his private practice was taken at Rs. 700/- per month. 13. The learned Tribunal, however, committed an error in opining that the insurance policy was not required to be proved. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our opinion, rightly held that the insurance policy having not brought on records, a presumption would arise that the liability of the insurer was unlimited. The learned Single Judge adopted a rather liberal approach. He took into consideration the entire evidence on records including the extent of disability allegedly suffered by Appellant. It was opined: "The appellant is lawyer by the profession. This profession needs unhampered concentration for the full devotion to the cases he might handle. When bodily pain and suffering subsist and there is even danger of such pain resulting in attack of the engina it certainly amounts to a great incapacity in performance of his professional duties by the appellant. The agony and suffering on this account which last with his life is difficult to measure in terms of money but I am decidedly of the view that damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal under this head are grossly inadequate. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances brought on the record, I shall assess damages under this Head at Rs. 1,00,000/-." 14. It was held that he was also entitled to the services of his wife who in turn would require some outside assistance and on that head awarded a sum of Rs. 57,600/-. He furthermore awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum.15. The Division Bench, in our opinion, had also taken a somewhat liberal view in favour of Appellant than he deserved. The Division Bench of the High Court opined that Appellant might have to engage a driver and for the said purpose awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month from the date of filing of claim petition till the award by the Tribunal. Appellant now wants the amount of compensation to be enhanced on that head. We decline to do so for more than one reason.16. Appellant has not proved that he had bought a car. He even on the date of accident was merely riding on a scooter. He has not brought on record any evidence to show that even at that point of time he could afford a car. As indicated hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court was more than generous in enhancing the amount of compensation. 17. So far as the question of interest is concerned, it is true that the same need not be claimed specifically. Interest is granted by way of compensation but, as has been held in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Another [(2003) 3 SCC 148] , the same must be a reasonable one. In Abati Bezbaruah (supra), this Court directed payment of interest only at the rate of 9% per annum, whereas the rate of interest awarded in favour of the claimant was @ 12% per annum. 18. Lakshmanan, J. in his separate judgment, whereupon Mr. Malik has placed strong reliance, opined that the rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life, etc. into consideration. Grant of interest is discretionary. We do not find that the discretion exercised by the High Court was in any manner unreasonable. 19. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in Abati Bezbaruah (supra) for the proposition of law that that future prospect of income should also be taken into consideration. We may notice that in that case multiplier of 15 was applied. The Tribunal had noticed that the income of the deceased as assessed only at Rs.3,500/- per month and, thus, the loss of dependency should have been enhanced to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month. This Court instead of granting Rs. 42,000/- per year increased the same to Rs. 45,000/- per year and the loss of dependency was, thus, calculated at Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 28,000/-. The claimant in that case was a salaried person. 20. Appellant herein before us is in legal profession. He may have suffered some injuries but the same would not mean that he would not be in a position to rise in his profession only by reason thereof. We, therefore, decline to enhance any amount of compensation in this behalf. 21. So far as the amount of interest is concerned, we may notice that in Devi Dayal Kansal and Others v. Raj Roop and Another [(2000) 10 SCC 314] this Court merely opined that interest would have been directed to be granted on the enhanced compensation but no law in absolute terms was laid down therefor. 22. The learned Single Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The rate of interest now granted is 9% per annum keeping in view the drastic fall in the bank rate. We, therefore, do not intend to interfere with the said direction of the High Court. 23. Reliance placed by Mr. Malik on Lata Wadhwa (supra) is not apposite. Therein multiplier method for determining compensation was resorted to as death occurred and injuries suffered by many persons in a devastating fire resulted from negligence on the part of the Company. [See Krishna Gupta & Ors. v. Madan Lal & Ors. 96 (2002) DLT 829 ]

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. The learned Tribunal, however, committed an error in opining that the insurance policy was not required to be proved. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our opinion, rightly held that the insurance policy having not brought on records, a presumption would arise that the liability of the insurer was unlimited. The learned Single Judge adopted a rather liberal approach. He took into consideration the entire evidence on records including the extent of disability allegedly suffered by Appellant. It wasappellant is lawyer by the profession. This profession needs unhampered concentration for the full devotion to the cases he might handle. When bodily pain and suffering subsist and there is even danger of such pain resulting in attack of the engina it certainly amounts to a great incapacity in performance of his professional duties by the appellant. The agony and suffering on this account which last with his life is difficult to measure in terms of money but I am decidedly of the view that damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal under this head are grossly inadequate. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances brought on the record, I shall assess damages under this Head at Rs. 1,00,000/-.It was held that he was also entitled to the services of his wife who in turn would require some outside assistance and on that head awarded a sum of Rs. 57,600/-. He furthermore awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum.15. The Division Bench, in our opinion, had also taken a somewhat liberal view in favour of Appellant than he deserved. The Division Bench of the High Court opined that Appellant might have to engage a driver and for the said purpose awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month from the date of filing of claim petition till the award by the Tribunal. Appellant now wants the amount of compensation to be enhanced on that head. We decline to do so for more than one reason.16. Appellant has not proved that he had bought a car. He even on the date of accident was merely riding on a scooter. He has not brought on record any evidence to show that even at that point of time he could afford a car. As indicated hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court was more than generous in enhancing the amount of compensation.Lakshmanan, J. in his separate judgment, whereupon Mr. Malik has placed strong reliance, opined that the rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life, etc. into consideration. Grant of interest is discretionary. We do not find that the discretion exercised by the High Court was in any manner unreasonable.Appellant herein before us is in legal profession. He may have suffered some injuries but the same would not mean that he would not be in a position to rise in his profession only by reason thereof. We, therefore, decline to enhance any amount of compensation in this behalf.The learned Single Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The rate of interest now granted is 9% per annum keeping in view the drastic fall in the bank rate. We, therefore, do not intend to interfere with the said direction of the High Court.