SWETA Vs. RAJU MANDLOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and what constitutes the same in para 9 expressed the view as under:

(2.) It is the fundamental truth that any compensation in terms of money cannot ameliorate human suffering and cannot usher in individual/personal deprivation. A physical frame, a glorious gift of nature, cannot be renewed or rejuvenate once it is shattered. The case at hand exposits an extremely tragic picture since a young colleen Sweta, aged about 18 years, a collegiate met with a motor accident on 11.7.2000 when she was sitting on a stationary jeep which was parked in the right side of the road, a truck bearing registration No. MP 09-K 8194 being rashly and negligently driven by the driver dashed against the jeep as a consequence of which she sustained grievous fracture in her skull which eventually resulted in blinding of the left eye partially and loss of right eye and disfiguration of the face and a bone gap on the skull. Be it placed on record the accident took place at Khandwa Road and initially she was treated at Khandwa and thereafter she was treated at M.Y. Hospital at Indore. She was admitted for 20 days where she was operated upon. Despite the operation she did not fully recover. Additionally she also lost her memory. Under these circumstances, she initiated an action under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal, considering the material brought on record awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 on several heads, namely, loss of income, physical pain and suffering, manner of life she is to lead, other future expenditure and other ancillary expenditure, mental pain and suffering. The Tribunal, in addition to the aforesaid, awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of presentation of the application till the date of realisation of the amount.

(3.) Mr. Anil Lala, the learned counsel appearing for claimant-appellant submitted that the accident has metamorphosed the victim to a semi-vegetable and as the quality of life has atrophied the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is absolutely meagre. It is submitted by him when a young girl, as has been accepted by the Tribunal, has suffered so many injuries, the amount of compensation awarded is extremely low and far away from the concept of just compensation as engrafted under the Act. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that Tribunal has not considered the factum of permanent disability ; deterioration of quality of life; condition in which claimant-appellant has been thrown; the amount that has been spent; the future expenses that are likely to occur to sustain her life and other concomitant factors. Learned counsel argued that the quantum has to be enhanced as the claimant had put forth a claim of Rs. 25,50,000 but the Tribunal turned a Nelson's eye on the factual scenario and granted a meagre sum which by no stretch of imagination can meet the statutory requirement.