K. Rama Moorthy, J.@mdashThe appeal is against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 29.7.1992 according a sum of Rs. 33,161/- as compensation to the appellant. The facts culminating in the filing of the appeal are as follows:
The appellant was unfortunately involved in an accident on 6.8.1983 when she was waiting at the Lajpat Nagar, Ring Road bus stop. The driver of the bus DHP 2552 took the bus on the reverse and without notifying and without any horn and with noticing whether anybody is standing on the rear side of the vehicle and without any signal the driver in a negligent manner came on the reverse side. The rear wheel hit the appellant and the left portion of her body was crushed and the result was the spinal cord was seriously affected and the lower portion from the limb because completely immobilised. The doctor who examined her had said that disability was permanent and it was 70%. The appellant filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 5 lacs with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the petition which was filed on 30.9.1983. The respondent D.T.C. denied the averments in the petition and denied the liability to pay the compensation and disputed the quantum claimed by the appellant. In support of her claim the appellant examined PW1-Mr. R.K. Gupta who is working with Vivekanand Mahila College to show that the appellant was receiving a salary of Rs. 2,573/- in August, 1983. PW2 was Rajni Sharma who was standing along with the appellant in the bus stand, Lajpat Nagar New Delhi. PW3 is Miss Alka Bhatia who is teaching the children of the appellant since October, 1983 and was charging Rs. 300/- per month therefore. PW 4 is Smt. Kusum who was working as maid servant getting Rs. 300/- per month. PW 5 is Dr. S.P. Mandal who had spoken of the nature of injuries and disability. PW 6 is Mr. Phool Chand who had been summoned to bring the casualty register of AIIMS. PW 7 is Mr. B.R. Batra who was working as Record Clerk in Safdar Jung Hospital. PW 8 is Mr. Pritam Singh SI who registered the FIR. PW 9 is the appellant Mrs. Jyoti Gupta. The driver of the bus was examined as RW 2. The certificate given by PW5 to show the state of health of the appellant is marked as Exhibit PW1/5 which was issued on 20.2.1984. The same read as under:
"This is to certify that Mrs. Jyoti Gupta, 30 yrs. female was alleged to have been involved in road traffic accident on 6th August, 1983 and was admitted in the casualty of AIIMS and after initial treatment was referred to Safdar Jung Hospital Casualty where she was further attended. She was diagnosed as a case of Traumatic Paraplegia due to spinal injury (compression fracture lumber vertebra)."
Till then she is treated in Sanjeevan Medical Research Centre, Darya Ganj, and in her residence. Though she has partially recovered from her illness she has got permanent disability of both lower limbs and is unable to walk. Even after 6 months of injury there is not improvement now.
2. The appellant has claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lacs. Towards mental agony, pain and suffering, disability sustained, consequences arising out of disability, shortening of life, expenses incurred on medicine, treatment, hospitalization, nursing, conveyance, special diet, loss of leave and loss of earning capacity. In 1983 the appellant was 33 years old.
3. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:
(1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. DHP 2552 by respondent No.1?
(2) To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and form whom?
(3) Relief.
4. On issue No. 1 the Tribunal found that the appellant sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. DHP 2552 by the driver respondent No. 1. On issue No.2 relating to compensation the Tribunal on mental pain, agony and suffering had awarded on amount of Rs. 20,000/-, on medical and treatment charges had awarded a sum of Rs. 2,161/- on conveyance charges the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000/- on special diet the Tribunal grated Rs. 1,000/-, to loss of pay the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs. 9,000/-. In all a sum of Rs. 33,161/- was awarded by the Tribunal and if the payment is not made within two months the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of the award, namely 29th July, 1993.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr. J.K. Seth submitted that in fixing the compensation the Tribunal had not at all followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the disability suffered by the appellant and her total inability to sustain herself and live a good human being and she was completely incapacitated to took after her children and the disability being 70% she has completely lost all good things in life and no amount of money could really compensate her but to sustain herself if the life prolongs she must have some money. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the evidence of PW.5 Dr. S.P. Mandal and also the certificate given by him. The learned Senior Counsel also read the evidence of PW 5. The appellant herself at the time of hearing of the case was brought in a wheel chair and her condition is really very bad and one would easily see that she cannot lead life of a normal human being discharging her duties to her husband and to her children. The learned Senior Counsel submitted seeing her state of health the amount awarded by the Tribunal is absolutely ridiculous and it is against fundamental principles applicable to the grant of compensation. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
6. The learned Counsel for the DTC Mr. Sushil Salwan submitted that the Tribunal had made the correct approach to the whole situation. The Tribunal had come to the correct conclusion that the appellant had not proved her disability being permanent and that the doctor''s evidence is not very much helpful. The learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal had come to correct conclusion, Therefore, does not call for interference.
7. The finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent act of the driver cannot be disputed.
8. This take us to the question with reference to the disability of the appellant. PW 5 Dr. Mandal had given certificate which is already extracted. In his oral evidence PW 5 has stated "she is having permanent disability of about 70%. I use to visit the petitioner every month till she remained confined to bed. Thereafter she was brought to my clinic time and again for follow up treatment. During the period she was confined to bed she was attended by the attendants for her daily meals and activities". The doctor has also stated that the appellant used to have repeated falls due to her not being able to stand up owing to serious injury in the spinal cord. Due to fall in August, 1984 she got her right shoulder injured. The doctor has further stated in cross-examination "this disability is of lower limbs on the basis of the involvement of lower limb out but due to further complication this disability is likely to increase in future and the same can be for the entire body also". Nothing has been elicited from which it can be said that the doctor''s evidence cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has made a remark that the evidence of the doctor does not inspire confidence. Before making such a comment the Tribunal ought to have assessed the entire evidence and how the evidence of the doctor was not acceptable. Mere comments would not at all satisfy the requirement of law. I am unable to see any defect in the evidence of the doctor.
9. Having observed the condition of the appellant in Court, I am in entire agreement with the view expressed by the doctor in his evidence. It is not necessary in a case like this to refer to opinions of exports in the field. It will be only superfluous. The condition of the appellant is so bad that she cannot fend for herself and life for her is really a misery and there can be no kind of enjoyment. This would take us to the determination of quantum of compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs. 33,161/- is not at all sustainable. The appellant was earning a sum of Rs. 2,573/- from 1983 and in 1986 it is a matter of common knowledge, there was a revision of pay scales by the Pay Commission and the appellant was also promoted to the next higher scale of Rs, 3700-5700. In her evidence which she gave in 1988 she had stated that she was getting monthly salary of Rs. 4,500/-. From 1983 to 31.12.1985 we can proceed on the basis that she was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,573/- from 1.1.1986 she must have been receiving Rs. 4,500/- as per the pay revision made by the pay Commission. Therefore, average could be fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per month.
10. The Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others (supra), laying the principles posited "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 capable 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 profits 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 shocks, pain and sufferings already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of emanates 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 person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life".
11. Here also because of the accident the appellant has become paraplegic. The principle has been reagitated by the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. S. Munium Baboo and Others (supra).
12. While assessing the quantum of damages in a victim of an accident damages have to be assessed pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those the victim has actually incurred which could be quantified arithmetically in terms of money. The Tribunal has held that onwards loss of pay the appellant had suffered Rs. 9,000/-. The Tribunal has also found that the appellant has spent a sum of Rs. 2,261/- for the purchase of medicines and had fixed Rs. 1,000/- towards conveyance charges. The Tribunal has also fixed Rs. 1,000/- on special diet. These are pecuniary damages. The non pecuniary damages would include damages for mental and physical shock, suffering due to pain and likelihood of suffering in future, damages to compensate for the loss of quality of life and loss of expectation of life and inconvenience, hardship, disability, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life and a sense of complex of not being able to discharge normal duties in life. The Tribunal had not applied any norms at all in fixing the special damages claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal took a perverse view that the appellant had not substantiated the case that she suffered other injuries mentioned in her statement. The Tribunal apparently did not have a proper assessment of the injuries after having seen appellant giving the evidence. The Tribunal had not at all adverted to relevant facts and Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot at all be sustained in law having regard to the principles laid by the Supreme Court and the permanent disability incurred by the appellant in the accident and had stain in life and the family background. I assess her income her year as Rs. 42,000/- and applying the multiplier 16 and assess the special damages at Rs. 6,72,000/-. The compensation, i.e. award may exceed what is claimed by her in the claim petition. The respondent cannot be technical in this aspect. Therefore I fix the special damages at Rs. 6,72,000/-. The pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal stands confirmed. The amount already paid to her shall be adjusted. The DTC respondent No.3 shall pay the same to the appellant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the application i.e. 30.9.1983 till the date of payment.
13. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Appeal allowed.
