JUGAL KISHORE Vs. RAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 29th July, 1974 by which the appellant was awarded only a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation against respondents 2 and 3 i.e. the owner and the insurer who were granted two months time to deposit the amount otherwise the appellant was held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award till realisation. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Briefly the facts are that Jugal Kishore, the appellant on 15th June, 1969 at about 8 A.M. with two passengers was driving scooter No. DIR 9322 and going towards Defence Colony via Pachkuian Road Connaught Circus, New Delhi and while crossing Connaught Circus, New Delhi bus No. DLP-3699 driven by Rai Singh, respondent No. 1 coming from Plaza side at a rash and reckless speed and without caring for the stop signal voilently hit his scooter and dragged it for some distance before the bus stopped. In the process the petitioner received grevious injuries. Respondent No. 1 driver was in the employment of respondent No. 2 owner of the said bus. The bus was being run by Delhi Transport Undertaking now known as Delhi Transport Corporation, respondent No. 4 on the date of accident. It is further alleged that he was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and his monthly income was Rs. 300.00 that he has been permanently disabled, he would not be able to earn his livelihood and would not be in a position to drive the scooter rickshaw or any other vehicle for life, that he has to support his family who has been rendered destitute, that he suffered lot of pain and agony due to the injuries, that he remained as anindoor patient from 15th June, 1969 to 8th August, 1969 in Willingdon Hospital where he was treated and his left foot above ankle was amputated as the same was badly crushed due to accident. The appellant claims Compensation for loss of limb, pain and suffering past and future, loss of future earning, expenses on treatment, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of expectation of life due to the injuries. He claimed a sum of rupees one lac as compensation. The offending vehicle is insured with respondent No. 3. The application was contested by the insurer and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi owning the Delhi Transport Corporation. The driver and owner of the vehicle, respondents 1 and 2 did not contest. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation. Hence this first appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very inadequate, that the Tribunal ought to have awarded at least the claimed amount of Rupees one lac as compensation on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application against all the respondents. This appeal is being contested by the insurer respondent No. 3 only. The Tribunal after recording evidence concluded that the appellant was injured and sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. DLP 3699 on the part of its driver. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence on record and I am of the view that the said finding of the Tribunal is correct.

(3.) The crucial question is whether the compensation awarded is adequate. Learned counsel submits that the appellant aged 23 years of age was earning Rs. 300.00 per month at the time of Occident and as life expectancy is about 70 years, the appellant is entitled to a sum of mare than rupees one lac on account of loss of future earnings besides the amount spent on treatment. The amount of Rs. 10,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal on the face of it is most inadequate. A person injured by another's wrong is entitled to general damages for non pecuniary loss such as his pain and suffering, past and future and his loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. The left leg above the ankle has been amputated. The appellant is entitled to pecuniary loss also. Pecuniary loss is of two categories one negative and the other positive. Deprivation of earnings or other items which would have been received by him but for the accident and have now been taken away is in the negative category. The burden of expenses required to be incurred as a result of accident would be in the category of positive pecuniary loss. It is very difficult to make an estimate in the case of a boy of 23 years whose prospective earning and probable loss connot be properly estimated. It is generally based on guess work very often a rough estimate. The burden of expenses to be incurred as a result of the accident, the costs of medical expenses which the appellant may be required to incur in future have also to be taken into. There is unrebutted evidence on record that the monthly income of the appellant was Rs. 300.00 . He is not in a position to drive the scooter or any other vehicle on account of amputation of his left leg. If the loss of future earning of the appellant is taken into consideration it would be at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month for a period of 47 years i.e. from the date of the accident upto the age of 70 years and it amounts to Rs. 1,69, 200.00 while the appellant has claimed rupees one lac. Further the appellant is stated to have spent a sunn of Rs. 800.00 on his treatment. Although there is no documentary evidence yet the amount is not an unreasonable one. Besides this for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment and amenties the appellant is further entitled to some amount which may roughly be taken as Rs.20,000.00 on the basis of various precedents brought to my notice. Thus it seems that the appellant was entitled to more than rupees one lac but he had restricted his compensations claim to rupees one lac. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellant ought to have been awarded a sum of rupees one lac as compensation claimed by him besides interest.