VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. GYANI RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that this appeal under Sec. 110(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter called "the Act") raises is as to the quantum of compensation to which the Appellant is entitled on account of general damages as a result of loss of the left arm as a result of accident and involves a difficult as indeed a painful exercise as to the valuation in monetary terms of pain, loss of happiness and diminution of earning capacity in cases of accident.

(2.) The facts, in so far as they are necessary for the purpose of this appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The Appellant, who was then a young student, was seriously injured while traveling in the bus belonging to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as a result of which the Appellant remained in hospital from April 16, 1964 until November, 1964 and later in July, 1965 suffered shock, bodily pain, lost his left arm just above the elbow, had to discontinue studies and suffered a sunstroke followed by an attack of jaundice while recovering from the injury and there has been considerable diminution of his earning capacity besides loss of happiness and enjoyment in life.

(3.) The Appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of general and special damages from the Respondents in an application under Sec. 110 -A of the Act in suit No. 164 of 1967. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal returned the finding that the Appellant received injuries on his left arm as a result of the accident and remained in hospital for the aforesaid period that his left arm had to be amputated and that the Appellant suffered considerable pain during the entire period until July 18. 1965. It however, returned the finding that it could not be said that the sun-stroke suffered by the Appellant and jaundice with which the Appellant was struck subsequently could be attributed to the accident. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 3,835/- as special damages on the basis of evidence produced before it and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on account of general damages on account of shock, physical pain, loss of the left arm and studies etc. In computing the aforesaid amount of general damages the Tribunal dispelled the claim of the Appellant that he had a mind to become an engineer and he had lost the prospect on account of amputation of the left arm on the ground that the academic record of the Appellant did not indicate that he was a brilliant student and that the Appellant having secured only 45% marks in the 10th class had very little chance of admission for a course in any Engineering Institution and would probably land in some clerical job because his father was a Superintendent in the Post and Telegraph Office. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on the record which may justify a conclusion of any possibility of the life of the Appellant being shortened on account of the accident.