BASAVARAJ Vs. UMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The task of adjudicating quantum of compensation payable under the non-pecuniary heads like pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life and loss of expectation of life, is not easy though appears to be easy. The task gets a bit more difficult if the claimant suffers a permanent disability at a young age. While quantifying the compensation under the non-pecuniary heads, the courts need to pause and ponder, particularly in a situation when the claimant suffers permanent disability.

(2.) Faced with a situation, where the claimant who suffered 40% permanent disability around his pelvic region, (on account of injuries which are referred later) claimed compensation of Rs.11,75,000.00, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,73,988.00=00. The doctor who treated the claimant assessed permanent disability at 40%. The doctor has opined that the claimant is unable to achieve a penile erection and nocturnal penile tumescence and thereby unable to copulate. According to the doctor, the condition is irreversible. Thus, the claimant who was aged 14 at the time of the accident, is in appeal. The insurer having admitted the liability has not questioned the award. However, is opposing the appeal for enhancement with all vehemence. Though, this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. The owner has not contested the claim petition and this appeal.

(3.) The very object of awarding compensation under non-pecuniary heads in a case relating to death or permanent disability is to restore, as far as possible, the position of the victim, to the situation that existed before the accident. In case of death or case of permanent disability, though the attempt is to restore the position of the claimant before the accident, no amount of compensation would restore the things as they stood before the accident. Tribunals and Courts are entrusted with the task of awarding compensation to mitigate the suffering to the best possible extent. However, the object of awarding compensation is not to confer a windfall on the claimant. The court/tribunal has to balance the conflicting claim of the victim and the tortfeasor. Bearing these principles in mind, this Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for contesting parties.