RATTAN LAL MEHTA Vs. RAJINDER KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Appeal, we are considering certain fundamental theories concerning non-pecuniary damages and certain principles concerning the basis and applicability of the statutory multiplier Table introduced by Parliament by Act 54/94. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in FAO No. 162 of 1983 dated 19.1.1989. The appeal is by the victim of the accident which occured on 28.3.1978 consequent to which the right eye of the appellant had to be removed. The appellant had to remain in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences upto 10.5.1978. In the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the appellant filed Suit No. 47 of 1978 on 8.11.1978 claiming a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 66,200.00 with costs against both the 1st respondent (Mr. Rajinder Kapoor) and the 2nd respondent (The National Insurance Co. Ltd. with interest at 9% from date of filing of the petition till realisation. The Tribunal gave a finding that 1st respondent was rash and negligent in driving his car DHA 8673 and in hitting the appellant's car DLF 3229 resulting in appellant's car getting smashed and appellant receiving serious injuries, losing his right eye and suffering permanent facial disfigurement. Appellant was in Hospital from 28.3.78 to 10.5.78. Appellant was 51 years at that time and was working, at that time, as a Commercial Assistant in the Swiss Embassy and getting Rs. 3.000.00 p.m. Due to the loss of one eye he has not been able to drive his car himself, and had to employ a driver.

(2.) The Tribunal referred to the plea of the Insurance Company that the appellant had written on 16.9.78 to the Company that he was willing to accept Rs. 25,000.00 and was therefore barred from claiming more. The appellant contended that he did so in the hope that the matter need not go to Court and the amount would be paid very soon but the Insurance Co. dragged on the matter and hence the present petition had to be filed in Tribunal on 8.11.78. The Tribunal noticed that in the letter the appellant asked for payment at an early date and having regard to the fact that the accident occured on 28.3.78 and there being no response in writing from the Insurancy Company as to whether they were prepared to accept this offer, the appellant was not barred from claiming whatever was legally due to him in a Court of Law. The Insurance Company did not examine any person to say that they had - as pleaded by them asked the appellant (i.e. orally) to file a petition before the Tribunal so that a compromise decree could be passed. None was examined for the Company to prove any such compromise. Therefore, there was no proof of alleged offer by the respondent nr of its acceptance by the appellant not of any oral understanding that a compromise decree could be passed. That Finding against the Insurance Company has become final.

(3.) The Tribunal then went into the question of.compensation payable and awarded Rs. 15,000.00 as general damages on account of pain and suffering. Towards special damages, Rs. 6.000.00 for medical expenses for removal of the eye etc. and estimated taxi expenditure as Rs. 625.00 p.m. for 25 days and deducted the earlier expenditure of Rs. 450.00 p.m. and estimated the increase in expenditure at Rs. 175.00 pm for reaching his office and coming back. Appellant was to retire after 65 years of age and at the rate of Rs.,2100.00 per annum for 10 years towards capitalisation - (and not for 14 years because appellant might resume driving or accept cheaper means of travel) and awarded Rs. 21,000.00 on this count. Appellant was hospitalised from 28.3.78 to 10.5.78 for 2 months and 12 days and towards loss of leave, Rs. 4,200.00 was awarded. The Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 20,000.00 towards loss of amenities and future enjoyment of life. In all Rs. 66,200.00 was awarded with interest at 9% from date of petition to date of realisation.