JUDGMENT Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
1. First Appeal From Order No. 517 of 1981 filed by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1981, passed by Sri D.K. Trivedi, the then Additional District Judge/Claims Tribunal, Kanpur, whereby he allowed the claim petition of respondent No. 1 and awarded Rs. 32,680 in all as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
2. First Appeal From Order No. 568 of 1981 was filed on behalf of Sanjay Awasthi, claimant against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1981, passed by Sri D.K. Trivedi the then Additional District Judge/Claims Tribunal, Kanpur, whereby his application for compensation was partly allowed and the Corporation was directed to pay Rs. 32,680 as compensation along with interest.
3. Since both these appeals have arisen out of one judgment and order dated 25.4.1981, as such, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
4. Claimant Sanjay Awasthi through his father Budhi Kishore Awasthi filed a claim petition for grant of Rs. 3,67,680 as compensation for the grievous injury sustained by him on 1.5.1979 at about 11 p.m. According to the claimant, he was travelling by bus No. UPG 3392 owned by the Corporation and was going to his village Gehlaun from Chunniganj Bus Station, Kanpur. When the bus reached village Naraujahan, the driver dashed the right side of the bus with the wall of the house owned by Bhlkoo Kahar/ Faqirey as a result of which claimant sustained serious injury in his right arm. He developed serious pain and there was profuse bleeding from the injury. Next morning, he was brought to the hospital at Kanpur, where his right arm was amputated to save his life. The claimant served the notice demanding compensation from the Corporation but no compensation was paid.
5. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the Corporation, Driver and Conductor of the bus in question. The Corporation admitted that the injured (claimant) was travelling in the bus in question on the impugned date but he had stretched his hand outside the window. When the bus was passing through the narrow road and on account of stretching of his hand, he sustained injury with the wall. It was also alleged that the claimant sustained injury on account of his own negligence and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the Corporation.
6. A replication was also filed on behalf of the claimant denying that injury in question was not caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus.
7. The claims Tribunal framed necessary issues. After having discussed the entire evidence on record led by the parties, the court below arrived at the conclusion that the injury in question caused to the claimant was on account of negligent driving of the bus No. UPG 3392 and there was no contributory negligence on his part. The Tribunal further recorded finding that claimant was a student of High School at the time of accident and had a good academic record. Taking into consideration the expenses on treatment and permanent disability caused to the claimant and other factors also, the claimant was entitled to recover compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,680 along with interest.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the parties came up in appeal.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the Corporation has assailed the finding of the Tribunal on all the issues and has urged that the claimant was travelling in the bus and was resting his hand on the window and on account of his own negligence, he sustained grievous injury in his right arm. The driver could not drive the vehicle at a high speed as the road was very narrow and the finding is erroneous. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the family background of the claimant as well as status of his father and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the right arm of the claimant had to be amputated on account of grievous injury with a view to save his life by the doctors and total permanent disability was caused to him and now the claimant has no future at all. The Tribunal did not consider various factors at the time of determining just and proper compensation payable to the claimant-appellant. He placed reliance on the following decisions :
(i) Rajendra v. Bishamber Nath and Ors., 1999 (3) TAC 195 SC ;
(ii) Suresh Chand v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1996 ACJ 1 ;
(iii) Robert v. United Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 2977 ;
(iv) Ramesh Kumar Awasthi v. Collector, Saharanpur and Ors., AIR 1982 All 425.
11. Therefore, the points, which arise for determination in these two appeals, are as under :
(1) Whether the claimant sustained grievous injury, which caused permanent disability on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus on the impugned date, time and place?
(2) Whether claimant-appellant himself was responsible for the injury sustained by him?
(3) To what amount of compensation is the claimant-appellant entitled?
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The claimant examined himself and his father Budhi Kishore Awasthi. He produced two doctors also who examined him and treated him at the Medical College, Kanpur, in the months of May, June and July, 1979. He led documentary evidence also.
13. On the other hand, the Corporation examined four witnesses in all including the driver and conductor of the bus in question. The claimant testified in clear words that he had not stretched his hand outside the window, as alleged by the Corporation and on account of negligence of the bus driver, he sustained injuries and his right hand was amputated. He was cross-examined extensively but there is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. Further the medical evidence on record led on behalf of the claimant also supported his case. On the other hand, out of four witnesses examined by the Corporation, the driver and conductor of the bus did not help the Corporation at all. The driver could not see the accident and he was unable to say as to how the injury was caused. The conductor was admittedly busy in preparing the way bill. Two public witnesses examined by the Corporation failed to help it and entire oral evidence led on behalf of the Corporation was rightly disbelieved. After having gone through the entire evidence on record, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the court below and the contention of learned counsel for the Corporation that the claimant himself was responsible for his injury cannot be accepted. In view of the nature and seat of the injury sustained by the claimant, it cannot be held that the claimant was stretching his hand outside the window at the time of accident. The court below has discussed the oral and documentary evidence in detail and arrived at correct conclusion. We see no reason to interfere with the finding, which is affirmed.
14. Now the next question is as to what amount of compensation is payable to the claimant-appellant. Before discussing the evidence on record adduced by the parties, on this point and scrutinizing the finding of the Tribunal, we feel it necessary to mention guidelines and principles laid down by this Court as well as by the Apex Court of the country for assessing quantum of damages which will be payable to the victim of the accident cases.
15. There are two Division Bench decisions of this Court in S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, 1983 ACJ 436 and Sushila Pandey v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 1983 ACJ 525. Besides, there is a decision of Supreme Court also in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd. and Ors., 1995 (1) AWC 39 (SC) : 1995 ACJ 366. In these three decisions, this Court as well as Apex Court has laid down broad principles for guidance of the Tribunal/Courts for determining the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident. The Supreme Court has laid down that while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money ; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant ; (i) medical attendance ; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial ; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future ; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened ; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.
16. There may be special circumstances depending upon the facts of a case and it would always be open to the Tribunal to take those special circumstances into consideration in determining the compensation. It is not necessary to allocate specific sums to different heads or sub-heads, instead it is proper to arrive at global figures after assessing various factors as contained in the various sub-heads. A review of the English and Indian Authorities shows that the conspectus of opinion has been that in bodily injury cases where the injured survives and is disabled, compensation awarded is higher than in cases of death because compensation is to be given to a living victim who is rendered disabled and is not able to lead a normal life or to carry on his avocation or enjoy amenities of life.
17. We shall, therefore, assess just and proper compensation payable to the claimant in the light of the aforesaid principle and guidelines. In the present case, the boy was 12 years old in the month of May, 1979 and was a student of Class IX in Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Sanatan Dharam Vidhyalaya Nawabganj, Kanpur. He passed his Junior High School Examination in first division in the year 1979 with distinction in two subjects Mathematics and Sanskrit. He was getting scholarship also. Thus, it is obvious that the claimant was a brilliant student and had a good academic record. The claimant was elder son of his parents. Admittedly, his right mid arm (above elbow) was amputated by the doctors on 2.5.1979 with a view to save his life. The boy was admitted in Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur, on 2.5.1979 and was discharged on 24.5.1979. He was again admitted on 6.6.1979 and was discharged on 20.6.1979. Thereafter, he got treatment as an outdoor patient. So far as the pecuniary damages are concerned, the claimant was brought to the hospital at Kanpur, where he was admitted and got treatment. According to the claimant's father, a sum of Rs. 105 was paid to the driver of the bus who brought the injured to Kanpur. Besides Rs. 200 were spent on the journey. The claimant was not paid Rs. 480 as scholarship on account of injury. Moreover, Rs. 2,000 was spent by the father of the claimant on his treatment and thus, the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 2,785. It is true that the claimant being a student was not an earning member of his family. However, in view of his good academic record, he had a bright future, which was tarnished on account of injury and permanent disability.
18. P.W. 1 Dr. Jayant Bajpai and P.W. 2 Dr. S.N. Chaturvedi orthopaedic Surgeons testified in clear words that total permanent disability was caused on account of amputation of his right arm and in absence of right arm, the claimant would have to face all sort of discomfort and inconvenience throughout his life. Admittedly, he will not be able to lead a normal life and he would be dependent upon the family members and others for several works. The prospects of his marriage as well as normal sexual life have also been diminished. The claimant's father desired to send his son to a Medical College. It is true that the life is full of uncertainties. The claimant could become a doctor also. But his future prospect was adversely affected on account of the injury, which caused permanent disability. After about ten years, on completion of his education, claimant could be an asset to his family.
19. Taking into consideration, the nature of injury and seat, we assess loss of earning up to the date of filing of the petition as well as in future at Rs. 75,000. So far as a non-pecuniary or general damages is concerned, we assess the loss at Rs. 15,000. Thus, the total compensation to which the claimant, in our opinion, is entitled to recover is Rs. 105 + Rs. 200 + Rs. 480 + Rs. 2,000 + Rs. 75,000 + Rs. 15,000 total Rs. 92,785.
20. We, therefore, find that the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal is on lower side and has to be enhanced in the light of the aforesaid discussion. We, therefore, assess the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs. 92,785. He is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment.
21. In the result, the First Appeal From Order No. 568 of 1981 of the claimant is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 92,785. The claimant will also be entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.
22. The First Appeal From Order No. 517 of 1981 filed by the Corporation is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this judgment be placed on the record of connected First Appeal From Order No. 568 of 1981.