J.P. Singh, J.
1. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to her as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu, for the injuries she had sustained on July 13, 2000 when she had been hit by brashly and negligently driven truck No. JK02L-0945 by Amarjeet Singh respondent, Mrs. Vijay Laxmi appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
2. Appellants learned Counsel Mr. B. D. Sundan submitted that Tribunals assessment of compensation for appellants loss of amenities of life at Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- for pain and sufferings was inadequate and according to the case set up and proved, she was entitled to enhanced amount of compensation under these two heads.
3. Insurance Companys counsel Mr. R. K. Gupta, on the other hand justified the impugned award saying that the Tribunals award for Rs. 61,935/- was just compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellant and no increase may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the award in the light of the opinion of the Chairman Standing Medical Board, Government Medical College and Associated Hospitals, Jammu.
5. As the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is only regarding the assessment of just compensation for the injuries received by the appellant in the motor vehicular accident arising out of negligent driving of vehicle No. JK02L-0945 by its driver Amarjeet Singh, respondent No. 1, so only few facts need to be noticed.
6. Appellants age at the time of the accident is stated to be around 40 years and according to the opinion of the Medical Board, her total collective permanent disability has been assessed at 15%. While rejecting her claim that she had been earning Rs. 4000/- per month by stitching clothes, the Tribunal has not assessed her income for the contribution she had been making to the family as a house wife.
7. The Tribunal has assessed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities of life but without supporting its findings by any reasons in support thereof.
8. In order to assess just compensation payable either to the dependents of deceased or to injured victim of the motor vehicular accident, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal is required to assess the monthly income of the deceased/injured and thereafter consider as to what amount of money would recompense the loss which the dependents or the injured, as the case may be, had suffered because of the death or injury. While doing so, it is required to keep the parameters which the Parliament in its supreme wisdom has prescribed in the Second Schedule issued under Section 163-A of the Act for assessment of compensation for third party fatal accident/injury cases claims as a guide, in mind, in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case.
9. The Tribunal has not given any reasons to support its finding in assessing compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for loss of amenities of life and Rs. 20,000/- for pain and sufferings. It cannot thus be ascertained as to what had weighed with the Tribunal to record such a finding. Such finding of a judicial authority, sans reasons, thus becomes arbitrary and hence unjustified.
10. Keeping in view the time which the claimant has already spent in getting just compensation for the injuries she had received about eight years back, I do not find any justification to remand the case to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation afresh and therefore consider it appropriate to determine the compensation which may be payable to the appellant keeping in view the nature of the case set up by her for receiving compensation.
11. While assessing compensation in case of bodily injury, the Tribunal is required to consider all relevant factors so as to enable the insured injured to be put in the same position as if he had not sustained any injury. The principle of restitutio-in-integrum may be applied in such cases. Pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss are required to be pressed under certain heads. So far as the pecuniary loss is concerned the same can be ascertained. What is required to be done is a balancing act by awarding such sum which, on the one hand shall take care of the loss suffered by the claimant for the present and future pecuniary benefits and, on the other, pecuniary advantages which from whatever source may come to them by reasons of such injuries. So far as non-pecuniary loss is concerned, the same has to be assessed broadly under certain heads, namely damages for physical pain, mental suffering etc. besides the amount spent on medical treatment, if any.
12. Going by the law as settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported as : (2001)IILLJ1559SC and taking the monthly income of the appellant, who is a house wife, at Rs. 3000/- being her contribution to the family. Keeping in view 15% permanent disability which she had suffered because of receiving grievous injuries in the motor vehicular accident and above all that she has to live the life of a disabled limping women all through her life, her loss of amenities of life is required to be assessed by adopting the Multiplier method, which has by now has been accepted throughout the country has the best method for assessing just compensation for the loss suffered. In view of 15% permanent disability suffered by the appellant, loss to her earning capacity is assessed at Rs. 450/- per month. The annual loss would thus come to Rs. disability, would come to Rs. 54000/-.
13. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain and sufferings too appears to be on the lower side in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping in view the principle of restitutio-in-integrum and the physical pain and mental sufferings through which the appellant shall have to go through all through her life as a disable person , I am of the opinion that as against an amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant for her pain and sufferings, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- would be just compensation.
14. The total compensation to which the appellant would be entitled to comes to Rs. 85,935/- which includes an amount of Rs. 6,935/- spent by her for medical treatment and Rs. 5000/- for special diet.
15. For all what has been said above, this appeal, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly allowed modifying the Tribunals award to be an award for an amount of Rs. 85,935/- along with interest as granted by the Tribunal. The awarded amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company in this Court within a period of four weeks, which on its deposit shall be released in favour of the appellant, on her proper identification.