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