9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers gathered and broke open the left side of the car with the help of crow bar and the appellant was taken out. The appellant was removed to the Kasturba Hospital where he was treated as indoor patient from 20.5.1980 to 27.5.1980. When the relations of the appellant reached the hospital, a decision was taken to remove the appellant to Bombay and accordingly on 27.5.1980 he was brought to Bombay and was admitted in the Sion Hospital. The appellant remained in the said hospital as indoor patient from 27.5.1980 to 2.8.1980. Because of the accident, the appellant suffered serious injuries resulting into 100% disability and a paraplegia below the waist. 2. The car was owned by M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 1 and was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2. The motor lorry was owned by one Madhav Bolar -respondent No. 3 and was insured by Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 4. According to the appellant, the driver of the car in which the appellant was sitting as well as the driver of the lorry which was coming from the opposite side, both were being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions of the insurance policy. 5. The Accident Claim Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties passed on Award directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the appellant compensation of Rs. 26,25,992 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application i.e. 13.11.1980 till payment and costs of the said application within three months. The Tribunal was also of the view that respondent No. 4 the insurer of the motor lorry belonging to respondent No. 3 was liable to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000 and interest thereon and proportionate costs. In the award a direction was given to Respondent No. 2, the insurer of the car to pay all the compensation along with interest and costs on behalf of respondent No. 1. 6. Against the Award aforesaid, two appeals were filed before the High Court, one on behalf of the appellant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the other on behalf of M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 1 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2 questioning the validity and correctness of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rashness on the part of the drivers of the two vehicles. The Tribunal has also pointed out from the materials on record that the motor car had gone to the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident. The High Court after referring to the order of the Tribunal said that after going through the evidence of the witnesses and the circumstances placed, it was of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and because of such negligence the appellant had sustained such serious injuries. The High Court also said that in view of composite negligence, the appellant was entitled for damages form the owners of both the vehicles and consequently the insurers of the two vehicles shall also be liable subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policies. The Tribunal as well as the High Court were satisfied that because of the accident aforesaid, the appellant had become paraplegic and it was not easy to assess the exact compensation which is payable to him. 9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worth-while. Money is no good to him. Yet judges and juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with the change in the value of money. 11. In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 12. This Court in the case C.K. Subramonia Iyer and Ors. v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Ors. [1970] 2 SCR 688 in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act has observed: In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. 13. In Halsbury ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered during the accident, the appellant has become paraplegic, the aforesaid amounts should have been allowed by the High Court. Accordingly, we allow the said claim for Rs. 1,42,000 under SI. Nos. 7 and 8. So far claim for Air Inflated Bed at SI. No. 9 is concerned, the appellant has claimed Rs. 5,000 for the present and Rs. 5,000 for the future. The High Court has allowed only Rs. 5,000 for the present. According to us, the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000 also should have been allowed by the High Court. Coming to the claim for Home Attendants against SI. No. 9A, the appellant has claimed Rs. 55,450 for the present and Rs. 1,87,200 for the future. The High Court has allowed Rs. 36,000 and 72,000 respectively. We feel that there was no occasion for the High Court to be so mathematical on this question. Under the circumstances prevailing in the society in respect of Home Attendants, the High Court should have allowed the amount as claimed by the appellant. We accordingly allow the same. For Drugs and Tablets (Allopathic), claim has been made for Rs. 9,000 for the present and Rs. 18,000 for the future. The High Court has allowed Rs. 5,400 and Rs. 10,800 respectively under that head as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nings, claim has been made at Rs. 3,60,000. The High Court has allowed Rs. 1,62,000 in respect of loss of future earnings. This part of the award does not require any interference because an amount of Rs. 1,62,000 can be held to be a reasonable amount to be awarded taking all facts and circumstances in respect of the future earning of the appellant. 16. The claim under SI. No. 16 for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life under SI. No. 17, are claims for Non-pecuniary Loss. The appellant has claimed lump-sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000 each under the two heads. The High Court has allowed Rs. 1,00,000 against the claims of Rs. 6,00,000. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. According to us, as the appellant was an Advocate having good practice in different courts and as because of the accident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
