NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in a Motor Accident Claim case. Heard. I have perused the record.

(2.) On 16.11.2003, Govind Ram (now deceased) was hit by a Bus bearing registration No. JK02D-8559 at Akhnoor. He suffered multiple injuries, which caused him 65 per cent permanent disability. He filed a claim for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short the Act) before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short the Tribunal). The Tribunal after inquiry, vide judgment and order dated 27.06.2008 found that accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending bus and awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,72,926 to the claimant. Since the offending bus was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company for third party risk so the Tribunal imposed liability of satisfying the award on the appellant. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in this appeal. Claimant/respondent No. 1 passed away during pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have been impleaded as respondents in his place.

(3.) Appellant's grievance against the impugned judgment is limited only to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. It has been contended that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is highly excessive and inflated. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that monthly income of the claimant has been wrongly taken as Rs. 6,000, which should have been taken as Rs. 4,000 only. No deduction on account of personal expenses of the claimant has been made. Compensation of Rs. 58,126, under the head 'medical expenses', has been awarded without any material on record. Learned counsel would say further that compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each under the heads "pain and sufferings" and "loss of amenities" is excessive. Learned counsel argued that under the schedule appended to section 163A of MV Act, permissible compensation for pain and suffering in a case of grievous injury is Rs. 5,000/- only, whereas no compensation for loss of amenities of life is provided under the schedule. Besides, Mr. R.K. Gupta contended that since it was a case of personal injuries, with the death of the injured/claimant, the claim for non-pecuniary damages has abated and compensation to that extent cannot be paid to the legal representatives. Dilating his point, Mr. Gupta would say that legal representative of the deceased claimant are not entitled to receive non pecuniary damages under the award. He would also say that the legal representatives of deceased claimant are entitled to receive only loss to estate suffered by the deceased, that is, the compensation under the head "medical expenses" and loss of earnings up to the time of the death of the deceased. Mr. Gupta placed reliance upon S. Vykumtam (died) per L.Rs. v. G. Naryana and others, 2008 ACJ 40.