JUDGMENT Srivastava and Singh, JJ.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer appellant. The insurer appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 6,96,406 as compensation to the claimant on account of his having suffered multiple injuries resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 58.5 per cent in the accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. UP 15-F 2250.
2. The claimant had come up with the case that on 25.2.2001 at about 7.15 a.m. when he was travelling by the offending vehicle, which was being driven rashly and negligently, it dashed against the tree causing serious injuries to the claimant including the fracture in his left hip bone. The claimant further claims that he was a Medical Officer in Sugar Mill, Sakauti and getting a salary of Rs. 13,313 per month. After accident he was admitted in Bara-banki, Lucknow and Meerut hospitals where his permanent disability was found to the extent of 58.5 per cent.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
4. It may be noticed that no award of money can possibly compensate a man and renew a shattered human frame. The bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation, which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury. Deprivation by injuries may result in loss of earnings or earning capacity, expenses to pay others for what otherwise the injured could do for himself and loss or diminution in full pleasures of living. While considering deprivation the gravity and degree of the deprivation has to be taken into account, including the duration of the deprivation and the degree of awareness of the deprivation.
5. Further, while awarding damages in personal injury cases, the compensation should be substantial in nature and it should not be merely token damages. Damages which are to be awarded for personal injuries should be such so far as the money can compensate the loss suffered by the injured person for wrongful act and for all natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act. Though, it is impossible to equate money with human suffering or personal deprivation but the court has to make an attempt to award so far as money can compensate the loss.
6. Even otherwise, the Tribunal, relying on the salary certificate of the claimant, proceeded to assess the loss of income of the deceased in view of the finding that on account of the disability caused to the claimant his 48 per cent working capacity has affected, as Rs. 76,680 per annum and multiplier of 8 was applied and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,13,440 as just compensation and apart from that awarded a sum of Rs. 77,966 towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and thus the total compensation was assessed at Rs. 6,96,406 which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings of the Tribunal returned against it but has not been able to demonstrate that the findings can be taken to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify an interference therein.
8. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as brought on record, this appeal is totally devoid of merits, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.
9. As prayed, the amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in this court by the insurer appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act be remitted to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal concerned so that it may be disbursed to the claimant.