RAMESH CHANDRA versus RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH CHANDRA 
v. 
RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS. 
(VICE VERSA) 
MAY 3, 1990 
[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-
A 
B 
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-
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. 
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. 
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 fil~d an appeal! by special leave 
praying for more compensation, interest etc. on each account. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court. 
1 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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. 
E 
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] 
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 Judgme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.