HARBANS SINGH Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is alleged that on 20.11.1985 an accident took place involving truck No. GTH 7626 which was being driven by the respondent No. 1 negligently and rashly. The truck belonged to the respondent No. 2 and it was insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 3. In this accident, the claimant - appellant sustained injuries on the right hand, thigh and other parts of the body. The bones of right hand and thigh were fractured and he sustained permanent disablement of the hand. He, therefore, moved a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), which after receiving the evidence and hearing both the sides, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 against the claim of Rs. 3,43,000. Feeling aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant -appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of both the sides.

(3.) IN the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and non -pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non -pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant -the loss of earnings, medical attendance and other material loss. Non -pecuniary damages include damages for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life and on account of the inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. In the case of personal injuries, it is the claimant himself who utilises the amount of compensation and it is he who suffers the impact of the incident throughout his life. Therefore, while determining the quantum of compensation, the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Apex Court should not be lost sight of.