Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal by the claimant has been filed for enhancement of compensation.
2. The admitted facts are that the claimant is a labourer. He was travelling in Truck No. HP- 14-4817 in the capacity of cleaner/labourer. The said truck met with an accident. The claimant suffered serious injuries in the accident. He was first taken to PHC Chandi. Thereafter, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he remained admitted from 3.5.2002 to 12.5.2002.
3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) allowed the claim petition. It found that the petitioner had sustained 75% disability and also found that the petitioner was working as labourer. Learned Tribunal however without even assessing the income of the injured allowed the compensation to the petitioner as follows:
1. For pain and sufferings : Rs. 20,000/-2. For loss of amenities : Rs. 40,000/-3. For shortened expectancy of lifeOn account of the injuries : Nil, not proved.4. For loss of earning andEarning capacity : Rs. 1,60,000/-5. For medical expenses, transportationCharges, attendant and special Diet etc. : Rs. 20,000/-------------------Total : Rs. 2,40,000/-------------------
4. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has filed the present appeal. Sh. Virender Thakur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is extremely meagre. According to him the learned Tribunal has not properly worked out the compensation in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court.
5. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages.
6. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few.
7. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1958 ACJ 504 (HL, England), are very pertinent:
Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.
8. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases:
Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good.
9. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. In the case of Mediana (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury held:
Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given.
In Perry v. Cleaver 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest held thus:
To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment.
10. In Phillips v. Western Railway Co. (1874) 4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus:
You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered.
11. Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases 'should be such as to enable even a tort feasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure'. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to 'hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing', should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases.
12. McGregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states:
The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life.
13. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. : [1995]1SCR75 , speaking about the heads of compensation, the Apex Court held thus:
Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed 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 of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they shall include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.' In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court held:The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.
14. This Court in Brestu Ram v. Anant Ram and Ors. 1989 (2) Sim. L.C. 298, held:
It is pecuniary loss, i.e. capable of calculation in terms of money, and nonpecuniary loss i.e. loss that cannot be easily assessed with accuracy-Pecuniary loss is the loss suffered by the victim due to the loss of earnings or other profits which he had been earning and was to earn in future at the same rate or at same promoted scale. Non-pecuniary loss consists of damages awarded for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life and prospects. Under non-pecuniary loss, for want of accurate assessment, a global figure could be arrived at and paid as compensation. Under pecuniary loss the assessment can be made easily by taking into consideration at least the monthly income actually earned by the victim and the difference between what he would be capable to earn on disablement.
It is well settled that in disablement cases compensation has always to be higher than even in cases of death since it is given to the living victim of the accident both for his personal loss and for economic loss. It can be said that the bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitled the victim to claim damages, which vary according to the gravity of the injury. Further, due to this injury, there can be loss of earnings, completely or partial due to the accident on his capacity to earn the same. Another consequence may be the loss he suffers on account of the enjoyment of life or full pleasures of living.
15. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, I am constrained to observe that the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- is abysmally low and not at all in consonance with the principles enunciated above. The learned Tribunal has been extremely conservative and awarding compensation. Turning to the evidence in the present case, the claimant appearing as PW-2 stated that he is unable to do any work and cannot even walk. Dr. Anil Bansal was examined as PW-4. He states that the disability of the petitioner-appellant is 75% and the disability certificate has been proved on record as Ext.PW-4/A. He has clearly stated that the petitioner is unable to do the job of a labourer. According to him, the petitioner even requires an attendant to walk. He has clearly stated that the disability of the petitioner is in relation to the entire body. According to him, the upper limbs of the petitioner are normal and he can only do a sitting job. From the evidence of the doctor it is apparent that the petitioner cannot work as a labourer.
16. The petitioner is an illiterate person. He has no avenues open for doing a desk job. He was a labourer prior to the accident and therefore as far as he is concerned his loss of earning capacity is virtually total. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal gravely erred in only awarding a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of medical expenses, transport charges, attendant, special diet etc. No doubt the evidence led by the petitioner to prove his expenses is not very satisfactory.
17. However, from the evidence on record it is apparent that he remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh for about 10 days. He has produced bills for about Rs. seven thousand. It is apparent that due to the fracture of the dorsal vertebra his lower limbs have become useless. The learned Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the certificate issued by the Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery that the approximate expenditure required for the treatment of the patient would be about Rs. 25,000/-. PW-4 Doctor has clearly stated that the petitioner requires the help of attendant even to walk. Therefore, I feel that if a global amount is to be awarded for medical expenses, transportation charges, attendant and special diet etc. this amount cannot be less than Rs. 50,000/-.
18. The petitioner remained in hospital for one week and thereafter he was bed ridden. As per the evidence on record he cannot walk without the help of attendant. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded to him for pain and suffering is extremely low. This amount is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-.
19. Under the head of loss of amenities, the learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner for loss of amenities. Here is a young man aged about 26 years who has totally lost the use of his limbs. The agony which he is suffering is immeasurable. No amount of compensation is sufficient. However, while computing the compensation it has to be kept in mind that for the rest of his life he cannot earn his livelihood. He needs help to walk. He will be a burden on his friends and relatives. Therefore, in my opinion he is held entitled to a sum of Rs. one lakh for future loss of amenities, discomfort etc.
20. Under the head of marital prospects, in view of the injuries suffered by the claimant he cannot expect to get married. He is awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of marital prospects. Under the head of loss of earning, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- without giving any reasons or calculations for the same. Even an unskilled labourer is entitled to wages of Rs. 100/- per day. These are the minimum wages in the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in the year 2002, the income of the claimant can be assessed at Rs. 2500/- per month. Though his disability is 75%, his loss of earning capacity is 100%. He was a labourer and he cannot do this work any longer. He cannot even walk. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that he cannot earn any amount whatsoever. Therefore, his entire income of Rs. 2500/- per month is the loss which is being suffered by him. In the present case the claimant was only 26 years when he suffered the accident and he has to live through out his remaining life and the compensation has to be such that he on the basis of such compensation can exist without being dependent on others. The reasonable multiplier, in my opinion, would be 18 and the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 2500 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 5,40,000/- for loss of earning capacity for past present and future. The claimant is held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 7,90,000/- and the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified accordingly. In addition thereto the claimant is entitled to interest on this amount @ 7.5% p.a. w.e.f. 8.8.2002 that is from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the entire awarded amount.
21. Out of the total awarded amount only a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be released in favour of the claimant. The remaining amount along with interest accrued up to date shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of five years at the first instance. The interest accruing on this amount shall hence forth be paid to the claimant on quarterly basis by remitting the same to his bank account.
22. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.