H.R. Panwar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment and Award dated 9.4.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short 'the Tribunal'), by which the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- as consolidated interest in favour of appellant - claimant (for short 'the claimant') and against the respondents No. 1 and 2. Aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award impugned. I have also carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal.
3. On 17.8.1989, the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing No. RNP 2994. The said bus was owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'). While the said bus was plying in the area of village Lambodi, a truck bearing No. RPA 2788 came from opposite direction. Both the vehicles, i.e. the bus and the truck, were being driven at a great speed rashly and negligently by their respective drivers, resulting thereby a head-on collusion of the two vehicles. The claimant, who was one of the occupant-passengers of the bus, sustained numerous injuries including the fracture of spinal cord resulting in paralysis of lower limbs. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation against the owners, insurers and drivers of the afore-mentioned two vehicles which caused the accident. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck; however the driver of the bus was not found negligent. The finding of the Tribunal, holding the truck driver negligent, has not been challenged by either of the parties and as such it became final.
4. The only point for consideration is: what should be the compensation, keeping in view the nature of the injuries which resulted in a permanent disablement as the injuries resulted in total paralysis of lower limbs of the claimant. From the evidence produced by the claimant, it has been established that the fracture of spinal cord resulted in paraplegia. Thus, from the medical evidence, as also from the statement of the claimant, it is established that the injuries sustained by the claimant resulted in total and permanent disablement of his lower limbs. The Tribunal, on appreciation of ocular as well as medical evidence, held that the injuries suffered by the claimant resulted in permanent disablement to the extent of 85%.
5. The claimant has incurred considerably a huge amount for his treatment, conveyance, attendant's expenses etc. during his treatment and would also require to incur for rest of his life as he is totally paralysed and cannot move without the help of an attendant. Soon after the accident, he was admitted to Rajnagar Hospital and thereafter to the General Hospital, Udaipur, wherein he remained admitted as an indoor patient upto 27.8.1989. He under went numerous operations and the doctors at the General Hospital, Udaipur referred him for a higher degree of treatment to Jaipur. He was scheduled to be left for Jaipur by air on 28.8.1989; air tickets were purchased for himself, two doctors, viz. Dr. Mahendra Gupta and Dr. Ladha, who are Readers in Orthopedics Department of General Hospital, Udaipur,and his brother Surendra Singh as an attendant. However, due to bad weather conditions, air journey could not be undertaken and the claimant was taken to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, wherein he undertaken various tests and operations. Despite the best efforts by the Surgeons at Jaipur, there was no improvement and ultimately the doctors opined that the injury suffered is incurable and he is rendered life-long incapable as being totally paralysed. The claimant also sought compensation for the loss of income for present and future life as he has been rendered totally function-incapaciated as having suffered paraplegia. The claimant has sought compensation for the permanent disablement, loss of enjoyment of life and amenities, physical pain and mental agony suffered and to be suffered for rest of the life, expenses incurred on treatment, nourished diet, attendant, conveyance etc. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the treatment expenses on the strength of treatment bills produced by the claimants. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded as compensation for permanent disablement, loss of income, physical pain and mental agony etc. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as consolidated interest.
6. It is settled law that in appeal, the quantum of compensation is interfered if the compensation awarded is either inadequate or it is too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, looking to the nature of the injury and permanent disablement, the amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate; rather it is shockingly low and, therefore, it is a fit case for suitable enhancement of compensation.
7. On the date of occurrence, the age of the claimant was 32 years and he was having the monthly income of Rs. 3000/-. He has been rendered totally and permanently, function-incapaciated for whole of his life. The certificate Ex. 216 shows the permanent disablement to the extent of 85%. However, the fact remains that the claimant paraplegic (totally paralysed) of lower limbs on account of the injury sustained by him, thus, his permanent loss of income has to be assessed as 100% for the purpose of computation of compensation.
8. It is settled law that while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of the road accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages include the actual expenses incurred and are capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of arithmetical calculations. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they are generally called general damages which may include the damages for physical pain, shock as also mental agony, which the victim had suffered and would suffer in future on account of injuries or the disablement. It also includes the damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which varies from person to person and injury to injury as on account of injury of the disablement victim of an accident may not be able to walk, run, sit properly and may not be in a position to drive the vehicles or even may find difficulty in moving from one place to another without help of attendants. Such damages also include loss of expectation of life as on account of injury normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened. Discomfort, disappointment, frustration, inconvenience and mental stress in life are the grounds of general damages.
9. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Put. Ltd. : [1995]1SCR75 , an active practising lawyer became cripple due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident and their Lordships, apart from compensation under various heads, awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life and observed as under:
It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer became paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a life-long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by Court that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury 'so far as money can compensate' because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame ____________. It is very nature whenever a Tribunal or Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards.
10. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Kala Mohan and Anr. : (1997)IILLJ1179Mad , the claimant, aged 34 years, sustained paraplegia due to breaking of his spinal cord and his entire body below the hip became functionless and senseless resulting in 100% permanent disablement. A sum of Rs. 6,49,000/- was allowed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court as the amount of compensation,
11. In Nagesha v. M.S. Krishna and Anr. : (1997)8SCC349 , the claimant, aged about 23 years, suffered permanent disablement of 95 per cent despite hospitalization of four months and undergoing serious surgical operations and would require medical attention for the rest of his life and constant care of someone even for his ordinary needs. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,85,000/-, which was enhanced by the Hon'ble Apex Court to Rs. 6,00,000/- inclusive of interest.
12. In Ashwani Kumar Misra v. P. Muniam Babu and Ors., 1999 DNJ (SC) 356, claimant, aged about 23 years, suffered permanent disability due to damage of spinal cord. He was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. The Apex Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest and cost of litigation.
13. In the instant case, the appellant suffered 85% disablement due to paraplegia of lower limbs resulting in 100% loss of earning capacity. His age, on the date of occurrence, was about 32 years and monthly income was Rs. 3000/-. Keeping in view his age, usual deprivation which the claimant has suffered and would suffer in future on account of being paraplegic (total paralysis) resulting in permanent disablement as also loss of earning capacity for present and future, loss of amenities of life, discomfort, frustration having rendered sexually unfit on account of which claimant would be under mental stress etc., in my considered view, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be just and proper compensation to meet the ends of justice.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. five lacs). The appellant shall be entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim application till realisation. However, there shall be no order as to costs.