ORDER
Verma, J.
(1). The present Misc. appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 16.4'96 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT case No. 469/92 whereby the claimant has been awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,65, 000/- only. This present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award.
(2). The claimant has sustained the injuries in the accident occurred on 24.3.92 when he was riding the motor cycle RRX-8736, he was struck by truck No. RNF-3547 being driven by Ram Nath respondent No. 1. The claimant suffered compound fractures of right hand and right leg. Right leg was amputed laleron. Due to this accident, he remained admitted in hospital for six times and operated upon about 7 times. He had to remain on leave for about two years; He cannot climb the stairs. According to medical opinion the permanent disability is to the extent of 70%. According to claimant, he spent about Rs. 50,000/- for treatment and another amount Rs. 20, 000/- to 25, 000/- were spenl on special diet. The claimant claimed in all Rs. 9 lacs.
(3). Apart from the oral evidence as many as 354 documents were exhibited. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2.
(4). After framing the required issues in regard to accident, negligence and quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the statements of witnesses and the documents; it was held by the Tribunal that the accident had been caused because of negligence of the driver of the truck. The Tribunal had found that because of compound fracture in right leg of the claimant, his right leg was amputed below the knee and his coller bone and fingrers were also fractured. The claimant was working in the Punjab National Bank. He remained on leave .from March, 92 to April, 94. He is using clutches while walking. He proved his salary as well as the leave taken by him. He sustained the permanent disability to the extent of 70%. After the amputation of leg, the claimant is unable to drive any vehicle whatsoever. Admittedly he cannot walk or run and cannot do the normal work.
(5). The salary of the claimant at the time of accident was Rs. 3, 400/- per month (as per Ex.4). He remained on leave for about two years. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 80, 000/- for the suffering and injuries and Rs. 81 000/- for pecuniary loss in regard to salary.
(6). For the reason that the appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation; there is hardly any necessity to enter into any other aspect of the case i.e. in regard to negligence or the manner in which the accident had taken place. No counter appeal has been filed by any of the respondent.
(7). Counsel for appellant relies on the judgment in case of R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1), it was held that whenever a Tribunal or court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswons. some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. Similar were the observations made in case of Ashwani Kumar Mishra vs. P. MuniamBabu and others (2). However, all such elements . are required to be viewed with objective standards. While assessing the damages, the court cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy, though conjectures to some extent are inevitable.
(8). In case of Ashwani Kumar Mishra (supra) apart from the medical expenses, Rs. 20, 000/- were awarded for special diet and expenses for attendant during the treatment. On guesswork his income was assessed to be Rs. 2,000/- and applying the multiplier of IG years, awarded the amount on account of loss of expectation of life besides disappointment, frustration and mental stress particularly when he has to keep a permanent attendant to look after him in his rest of life.
(9). Counsel for appellant relies on the judgment in case of Shashenda Lahiri vs. UNICEF and Other (3), wherein the injured sustained several fractures in leg resulting in shortening of leg by 3', who was 17 years old. He suffered permanent disability. He underwent bone grafting and hospitalization. The Apex Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,58,000 from Rs. 58, 000/-. The accident had occurred in they year 1977.
(10). Counsel for appellant also relied on the judgment in case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. R. Sethuram and another (4), wherein miligalion ofdamages were permitted to be raised at appellate stage for the first time. The injured sustained fractures and remained indoor patient for four months in India and then went for treatment to USA. He underwent four operations. The injured was 33 years old, employed in USA and was green card holder. The injured became crippled for life as his right hand always remained in a clawed position and he could not walk but with the aid of stick. The injured had lost the lustre of youthful life including sex life and participation in social activities, sports and swimming. He lost the salary of 31 months. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 21, 32, 900/- for medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment and Rs. 2,00, 000/- towards general damages. The award of the Tribunal was upheld by the Apex Court by the Judgment reported in 1999 ACJ 1278.
(11). Counsel for the appellant also relies on the judgment in case of Jitendra Singh vs. Islam and Others (5), wherein the injured had sustained amputation of left leg and permanent disability to the extent of 55%. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50, 000/-as non pecuniary damages for loss of amenities of life, mental agony and pain and suffering plus Rs. 1, 000/- for medical expenses. The appellate court allowed non pecuniary damages of Rs. 3, 00, 000/-.
(12). In case of Bhagwan Singh Meena vs. Jai Kishan Tiwari and Others (6), the non pecuniary damages were enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- in case of amputation of right leg of the injured.
(13). Yet in another case of Gandhari Ramesh vs. Janardhan and Others (7), the appellate court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,66,000/- in the case of total severance of right arm of injured having loss of efficiency to the extent of 90%.
(14), In case of Swatantra Kumar Lamba and another vs. Sheila Did! and Another (8), the injured suffered fractures in both bones of left leg and shortening of leg by 2 cms resulting in limping and permanent disability to the ex tent of 20%, the movements of ankle were limited and dorsiflexion was limited to half. The injured found it difficult to stand on tiptoes. The injured was an Advocate and 30 years old and could not attend to his professional work for 10 months. The award of Rs. 3,53,500/- was granted.
(15). Incase of Kum.Ekta Khaitan vs. Sita Ram (9), decided on 17.12.98, wherein the right leg and right middle finger of injured were amputed. She sustained fractures in both the thigh- bones and left leg bone and received deep cuts on her forehead and face. This court awarded Rs. 5 lacs as non pecuniary compensation along with Rs. 97,213,62 pecuniary damages.
(16). In case of Inspector General, Stamps & Registration vs. Bhagwan Singh (10) decided on 22.9.2000, this court upheld the award of Rs. 5,40,000/- non pecuniary damages and pecuniary loss Rs. 1,00,000/- along with Rs. 1,25,00/- as such the total award of Rs. 7,65,000/- was upheld which was awarded to the injured who suffered amputation of left leg. This court has held as under:-
'For determination the quantum of compensation the court has to take into consideration damages separately as pecuniary damages and special 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; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning off profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in further; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss on amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e. on accour.: of injury the claimant may not be able lowalk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account ol injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shotened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.'
(17). In the present case the injured had to suffer multiple fractures. His one leg was amputed. He had to undergo 6/7 operations. He remained on leave for about two years. He is suffering pain and sufferings because of injuries and he always needs help of one or the other. As per medical certificate, he suffered 70% permanent disability because of the accident occurred in the year 1992. For such injury, non pecuniary compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- cannot be said to be justified. The Tribunal has not applied its mind to the facts of [he case and also to the principles discussed above.
(18). The award of the Tribunal is to be modified in the following manner: -
(i) the compensation of non-pecuniary damages is enhanced from Rs. 80, 000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/-;
(ii) the claimant shall be entitled to the pay of two years Rs. 80, 0007-instead of Rs. 81,600/-;
(iii) the claimant shall be enlitled to special diet and for expenses of coming and going to hospital which is assessed as Rs. 20,000/-;
(iv) ii is stated that the claimant had spent Rs. 55,0007- for medical expenses, which aspect has not been discussed by the Tribunal. The injured who remained on leave for about 2 years and had operated upon about 6/7 times, his leg has been amputed, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 50, 0007- can be termed as on excessive side. Rs. 50,000/- is awarded for medical expenses.
(19). For the reasons mentioned above the total amount of compensation including non pecuniary compensation is enhanced to Rs. 5,00,0007- to be awarded to claimant, which shall bear the interest as awarded by the Tribunal that is 12% per annum from 3.5.92.
(20). The balance of the amount of compensation shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by respondents jointly and severally. Any amount, so far paid, shall be adjusted.
(21). Out of the amount so enhanced Rs. 1,00,0007- shall be paid in cash, which shall be deposited in Bank in Saving Account for meeting the day to day expenses and the remaining amount shall be deposited in FDR in scheduled bank in Punjab National Bank, where the appellant is employed, for a minimum period of three years with liberty to claimant to withdraw the interest, if so required by him.
(22). With the above observations, the Misc. appeal is allowed.