UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the Cross-objections filed by the respondent No.1 claiming enhancement in the amount of compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the appellant has already been decided vide order dated 27.3.2008 but due to oversight the cross- objections filed by the respondent could not be disposed of at the time of deciding the main appeal. In the cross objections filed by the respondent No.1 grievance raised that the tribunal erred in not awarding Rs. 1,26,000/-, which was the amount spent by the respondent no. 1 from August, 1997 to January, 1998 and from June, 1998 to January, 2001 on the driver as he lost his eye and suffered 30% permanent disability and thus, was unable to drive the car himself and had to keep a driver. He also submitted that the tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for the services of a driver to be engaged in future after retirement as due to loss of his one eye he would be unable to drive the car and will require the assistance of a driver to commute by car. The counsel also urged that the respondent no.1 is a qualified engineer and he would have continued to work even after his retirement for at least another 15 years period as it is a matter of common knowledge that the professionals remain busy throughout life, therefore, the tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for future loss of income. Further, the counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- each for pain and suffering and for the loss of amenities of life and should have at least awarded Rs. 3,00,000 and Rs. 3,50,000, respectively, under the aforesaid head of damages. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life and disfigurement of face on account of loss of right eye and same ought to have been awarded. The counsel further submitted that the tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation to the family of the respondent no.1 due to the said accident. The counsel also urged that the tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 7% pa which should have been awarded @ 18% pa.

(2.) In plethora of cases the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts have held that the emphasis of the courts in personal injury and fatal accidents cases should be on awarding substantial, just and fair damages and not mere token amount. In cases of personal injuries and fatal accidents the general principle is that such sum of compensation should be awarded which puts the injured or the claimants in case of the fatal accidents matter in the same position as he would have been, had the accident not taken place. In examining the question of damages for personal injury, it is axiomatic that pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damages are required to be taken in to account. In this regard the Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has classified pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as under:

(3.) In the instant case the tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,98,970.71/- for expenses towards medicines, physiotherapy and future treatment; Rs. 18,000/- for special diet; Rs. 10,000 ambulance charges; Rs. 46,226/- for air travelling; Rs. 50,700/- for keeping medical attendants; Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain and sufferings; Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities; Rs. 5,53,728 on account of permanent disability to the extent of 30% and Rs. 1,24,962/- on account of loss of earnings.