Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
RAMESH CHANDRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS.(VICE VERSA)
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/05/1990
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
CITATION:
1990 SCR (3) 1 1990 SCC (3) 723
JT 1990 (2) 579 1990 SCALE (1)53
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Section 110-B--Motor Acci-
dent Claim--Award of compensation under separate head
"general damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment
of life" in addition to compensation for impairment of
capacity to earn--Whether justified.
Section 110- CC--Award of interest on amount of compen-
sation-Whether dependent on pleading by claimant.
HEADNOTE:
In a claim for damages for the permanent disability
suffered by the claimant, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
awarded compensation under different beads, viz., (a) com-
pensation for permanent disability (b) expenses of treat-
ment, and (c) general damages for pain, suffering and loss
of enjoyment of life, against the Insurance Company and the
truck owner.
On Separate appeals by the claimant, truck owner and the
Insurance Company, the High Court, not only affirmed the
award but also improved it by granting interest at 6 per
cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date
the claim petition was filed upto the date of payment of
compensation.
The truck owner filed an appeal, by special leave,
before this Court on several grounds including that when the
claimant had not claimed interest in the application, and
the Tribunal had not awarded any, the High Court was in
error in granting interest under Section 110-CC of the Motor
Vehicles Act, where the power of the Court of the Tribunal
was discretionary, and that the grant of damages on account
of mental agony, pain and suffering etc. was arbitrary and
ought to have been taken to be covered by the compensation
granted on account of loss of earning. The claimant also
filed an appeal, by special leave praying for more compensa-
tion, interest etc. on each account.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
2
HELD: 1.1 The question of award of interest is dependent
on the claim being allowed. Should the claim be not allowed.
the question of grant of interest would not arise. and if
awardable, it is in addition to the amount of compensation.
The Court of Tribunal, in these circumstances, should deter-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
mine, in the first instance, claim for compensation and in
the event of its being allowed can further exercise the
discretion to grant simple interest in terms thereof, but as
an additive to the amount of compensation. So, the addition
of interest to the compensation, by judicial discretion, is
sequential in the eye of law and no claim in that regard,
specifically need be laid in so many words in the claim
petition. The grant of interest, is not dependent on any
pleading in that regard and can even be orally asked if the
contingency arises. [5B-D]
In these circumstances, there is no substance in the
attack to the grant of interest. [5D]
1.2 The incapacity or disability to earn a livelihood
would have to be viewed not only in presenti but in futuro
on reasonable expectancies and taking into account deprival
of earnings of a conceivable period. This head being totally
different cannot overlap the grant of compensation under the
head of pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. One
head relates to the impairment of a person’s capacity to
earn, the other relates to the pain and suffering and loss
of enjoyment of life by the person himself. [5F-G]
In the instant case, the pain and suffering and loss of
enjoyment of life is a resultant and permanent fact occa-
sioned by the nature of injuries received by the claimant
and the ordeal he had to undergo. This, on the face of it is
a distinct head, quite apart from the inability to earn
livelihood on the basis of incapacity or disability which is
quite different. If money be any solace, the grant of
Rs.20,000 to the claimant represents that solace. Money
solace is the answer discovered by the Law of Torts. No
substitute has yet been found to replace the element of
money. [5E-F]
1.3 In the facts and circumstances of this case, there
is no scope for further enhancement of compensation and
further enhancement of interest. [6A]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1188 of
1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.1976 of the Allahabad
3
High Court in F.A.O. No. 444 of 1975.
AND
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5344 of 1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.1976 of the
Allahabad High Court in F.A. (F.O.) No. 458 of 1975.
Praveen Swarup, Pramod Swarup, B.D. Sharma, Smt. Sushma
Suri, and Jitender Sharma for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUNCHHI, J. This appeal and special leave petition are
cross cases in nature and are directed against the judgment
and order dated December 7, 1976 passed by a Division Bench
of the High Court of Allahabad At Allahabad in F.A.O. No.
444 of 1976.
The facts established before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bulandshahr and re-oriented before the High Court
were that Randhir Singh while driving a tempo on October 10,
1972 on a road leading from Bulandshahr to Sikandrabad was
hit head-on by a speeded truck owned by Ramesh Chandra, as a
result of which his tempo was thrown into a nearby ditch
whereby he sustained injuries on both his legs and his
several bones were fractured as well. This was followed by
lodging of a report at Police Station, Sikandrabad and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
putting the injured at District Hospital, Bulandshahr where-
from he was removed to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi for
final treatment. The permanent result was that a part of the
right foot of Randhir Singh had to be amputated as his toes
had become gangrenous.
Randhir Singh moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bulandshahr seeking damages to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. The
contestants being Ramesh Chandra the owner of the truck, its
driver and the Insurance Company took various defences to
negative the claim. The matter was focussed by the issues
framed. The Tribunal by an elaborate and well reasoned order
fixed negligence on the truck driver and held the injured
entitled to compensation. In the measurement thereof the
Tribunal took note of the age of the claimant to be 22 years
and his expected income as a driver of a motor vehicle at a
minimum rate of Rs.300 p.m., expected-to be earned for at
least 22 years in the coming. The figure thus arrived was at
Rs.79,200 and that
4
being lumpsum payment determined a sum of Rs.55,000 to be
adequate compensation for the permanent disability suffered
by the claimant. Besides the Tribunal granted Rs.3,000 on
account of expenses of treatment. Under the head of general
damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life
the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000 as compensation.
Thus a total award of Rs.78,000 was made in favour of the
claimant. Rs.50,000 was ordered to be paid by the Insurance
Company as its liability was found to be limited to that
extent. The remaining Rs.28,000 was ordered to be paid by
the owner. The claimant also got 3/4th of his costs.
Three separate appeals were filed before the High Court;
one by the dissatisfied claimant; the second by the ag-
grieved truck owner and the third by the aggrieved Insurance
Company. The High Court dealt with the matter in equal
elaboration. It affirmed the view of the Tribunal in grant-
ing compensation under the three heads aforementioned.
However, the award was improved to the extent that the
claimant also got interest at the rate of 6 per cent per
annum on the amount of compensation from 11.11.1972, the
date on which the claim petition was filed upto the date of
the payment thereof; subject of course to suitable adjust-
ments in the event of any payment having already been made
to the claimant.
In Civil Appeal No. 1188 of 1977, preferred by the owner
of the truck, leave was granted limited to grounds II & XIX
of the Special Leave Petition. In Ground No. II the question
raised was that when the claimant had not claimed interest
in the application, and the Tribunal had not awarded any,
the High Court was in error in granting interest under
Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act where the power of
the Court of the Tribunal was discretionary. In Ground No.
XIX the question raised was that a sum of Rs.20,000 on
account of mental agony, pain and suffering etc. was arbi-
trarily granted, and thus ought to have been taken to be
covered up by the compensation granted on account of loss of
earning. In Special Leave Petition No. 5344 of 1977 the
claimant has asked for more compensation, interest etc on
each count.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the appeal papers, in particular regard of the
limited nature of appeal of the truck owner. Section 110-CC,
as it stood on the date of the accident, provided that where
any Court or Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation
made under the Act, such Court or Tribunal may direct that
in addition to the amount of compensation simple
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
5
interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date
not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may
specify in this behalf. The caption of the provision is
"Award of interest where any claim is allowed". The question
of award of interest is dependent on the claim being al-
lowed. Should the claim be not allowed, the question of
grant of interest would not arise, and if awardable, it is
in addition to the amount of compensation. The Court of
Tribunal, in these circumstances, should determine, in the
first instance, claim for compensation and in the event of
its being allowed can further exercise the discretion to
grant simple interest in terms thereof, but as an additive
to the amount of compensation. So the addition of interest
to the compensation, by judicial discretion, is sequential
in the eye of law and no claim in that regard, in our view,
specifically need be laid in so many words in the claim
petition. The grant of interest in our view, is not depend-
ent on any pleading in that regard and can even be orally
asked if the contingency arises. Thus, in our view, there is
no substance in Ground No. II of the Special Leave Petition
and the attack to the grant of interest is negatived.
With regard to Ground No. XIX covering the question that
the sum awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of
life etc. termed as general damages should be taken to be
covered by damages granted for loss of earnings is concerned
that too is mis-placed and without any basis. The pain and
suffering and loss of enjoyment of life which is a resultant
and permanent fact occasioned by the nature of injuries
received by the claimant and the ordeal he had to undergo.
If money be any solace, the grant of Rs.20,000 to the claim-
ant represents that solace. Money solace is the answer
discovered by the Law of Torts. No substitute has yet been
found to replace the element of money. This, on the face of
it appeals to us as a distinct head, quite apart from the
inability to earn livelihood on the basis of incapacity or
disability which is quite different. The incapacity or
disability to earn a livelihood would have to be viewed not
only in presenti but in futuro on reasonable expectancies
and taking into account deprival of earnings of a conceiva-
ble period.: This head being totally different cannot in our
view overlap, the grant of compensation under the head of
pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. One head
relates to the impairment of a person’s capacity to earn,
the other relates to the pain and suffering and loss of
enjoyment of life by the person himself. For these reasons,
we are of the considered view that the contentions raised by
the truck-owner appellant in that behalf must be negatived
and we hereby negative them.
6
With regard to further enhancement of compensation and
further enhancement of interest, as claimed in the special
leave petition by the claimant, we find in the facts and
circumstances of this case, no scope in that regard.
As a result of the afore-discussion, both these matters
are without merit and are accordingly dismissed. Parties to
bear their own costs.
N.P.V. Appeals dis-
missed.
7