RAMESH CHANDRAversusRANDHIR SINGH AND ORS.

                              RAMESH CHANDRA                                        A
                                      v.
                           RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS.
                                (VICE VERSA)

                                     MAY 3, 1990
                                                                                    B
                   [L.M. SHARMA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.]

              Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Section 110-B-Motor Accident
        Claim-Award of compensation under separate head "general damages
        for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life" in addition to compen-
        sation for impairment of capacity to earn-Whether justified.                C

,,,.-        Section 110-CC-Award of interest on amount of compensation--
        Whether dependent on pleading by claimant.

               In a claim for damages for the permanent disability suffered by
        the claimant, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensa-          D
        tion under different heads, viz., (a) compensation for permanent disa-
        bility (b) expenses of treatment, and (c) general damages for pain,
        sufferring and loss of enjoyment of life, against the Insurance Company
        and the truck owner.

                                                                                    E
              On Separ le appeals by the claimant, truck owner and the Insur-
        ance 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.
                                                                                    F
              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
                                                                                    G
        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 fil~d an appeal! by special leave
        praying for more compensation, interest etc. on each account.

              Dismissing the appeals, this Court.                                   H


                                            1
    2                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1990] 3 S.C.R.

A         HELD: I. I 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 circumst-
    ances, should determine, in the first instance, claim for compensation
    and in the event of its being allowed can further exercise the discretion
8   to grant simple interest in terms thereof, but as an additive to the
    amount of compensation. So, the addition of interest to the compensa-
    tion, by judicial d·iscretion, is sequential in the eye of law and no claim
    in that regard, specifically need be l~id in so many words in the claim
    petition. The grant of i11terest, is not dependent on any pleading in that
    regard and can even be orally asked ifthe contingency arises. [SB-D]
c         In these circumstances, there is no substance in the attack to the
    grant of interest. [SD]

          I.2 The incapacity or disability to earn a livelihood would have to       ~-
    be viewed not only in presenti but in futuro on reasonable expectancies
0   and taking into account deprival of earnings of a conceivable period.
    This head being totally different cannot overlap the grant of compensa-
    tion 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 eniovment of life by the
    perso11 him:;elf. [SF-G]
E
           In the instant case, the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of
    life is a resultant and permanent fact occasioned 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
F   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. [SE-Fl

           I.3 In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no scope
G    for further enhancement of compensation and further enhancement of
    .interest. [6A]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1188
    of 1977.

H          From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .12.1976 of the Allahabad
                    RAMESH CHANDRA v. RANDHIR SINGH [PUNCHHI, J.]                3

           High Court in F.A.0. No. 444 of 1975.
                                                                                     A
                                            AND

                 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5344 of 1977.

                From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.1976 of the Allahabad         B
           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
                                                                                     c
                 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.
                                                                                     D
                 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     E
           both his legs and his several bones were fractured as well. This was
           followed by lodging of a report at Police Jltation, Sikandrabad and
           putting the injured at District Hospital, Bulandshahr wherefrom 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.                    p

                 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 ne~ative the
           claim. The matter was focussed by the issues framed. The Tribunal by      G
           an elaborate and well reasoned order fixed negligence on the truck
           driver and held the injured entitled to compensation. In the measure-
,....\     ment 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 h1 the coming. The figure thus arrived was at Rs.79,200 and that    H
    4                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1990] 3 S.C.R.

    being lumpsum payment determined a sum of Rs.55,000 to be ade-
A
    quate compensation for the permanent disability suffered by the claim-
    ant. 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
B   the claimant. Rs.50,000 was ordered to be paid by the Insurance Com-
    pany as its liability was found to be limited to that extent. The remain-
    ing Rs.28,000 was ordered to be paid by the owner. The claimant also
    got 3/4th of his costs.                                                     y
        Three separate appeals were filed before the High Court; one by
  the dissatisfied claimant; the second by the aggrieved truck owner and
c the third by the aggrieved Insurance Company. The High Court dealt
  with the matter in equal elaboration. It affirmed the view of the Tri-
                                                                                     -
  bunal in granting compensation under the three heads aforemen-
  tioned. However, the award was improved to the extent that the claim-
  ant also got interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount
D 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 adjustments 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
 E 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.
 F XIX the question raised was that a sum of Rs.20,000 on account of
   mental agony, pain and suffering etc. was arbitrarily 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.
 G
         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
 H may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple
                    RAMESH CHANDRA v. RANDHIR SINGH [PUNCHHI, J.J                   5

           interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier      A
           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 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       B
          amount of compensation. The Court of Tribunal, in these circumst-
          ances, should determine, in the first instance, claim for compensation
     J,   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 compensa-
          tion, by judicial discretion, is sequential in the eye of law and·p,o claim
          in that regard, in our vie_w, specifically need be laid in so many words      c
          in the claim petition. The grant of interest in our view, is not depen-
          dent on any pleeding 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.
                                                                                        D
                 With regard to Ground No. XIX covering the question that the
           sum award~d 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
                                                                                        E
     ~     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 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. This, on the face of it appeals to us as a distinct n.ead, quite
                                                                                        F
          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 conceivable period. This head being totally different cannot in
          our view overlap, the grlmt of compensation under the head of pain,
                                                                                        G
          suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. One head relates to the impair-
          ment 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.                                                         H
    6                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [ 1990] 3 S.C.R.

A         With regard to further enhancement of compensation and
    further enhancement of interest, as claimed in the special leave peti-
    tion 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 with-
B   out merit and are accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own
    costs.
                                                                                   j
    N.P.V.                                              Appeals dismissed.     y