Asara Fatima vs G. Selvam and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—1. MFA No. 30600/2012, MFA No. 30601/2012 and MFA No. 30599/2012 arise out of the common judgment and award dated 20.12.2011 in MVC No. 1296/2009; MVC No. 1295/2009; and MVC No. 1294/2009 respectively of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. IV, Bijapur (for short ''the MACT''), filed by the claimants for higher compensation.

The claimant/appellant in MFA No. 30600/2012 suffered injury in the nature of lacerated wound from glabellar region down the nose 4 x 1 cm with CT scan showing fracture of nasal bones and anterior wall of left maxillary sinus, in the accident that occurred on 04.05.2009 at about 6:00 a.m. while travelling in Maruti Car bearing No. KA-03/MK-6497, when dashed by the lorry bearing No. TN-28/S-9878 driven in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction. Claimant, before the MACT examined P.W. 5 � Dr. S.S. Bedar, who spoke to the disability suffered by the claimant on the basis of the report of the Radiologist, Ex. P. 26, the x-ray films Ex. P25 and opined that the claimant suffered 20% to 22% disability. Claimant was examined as P.W. 3 and testified to the fact of working as Senior Software Engineer in M. Phasis Ltd. and E.D.S. Company, Bangalore, earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. The treatment at Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital Ltd., of Coimbatore, it is stated, claimant incurred expenses as setout in the medical bill Ex. P19 50% of which was paid by the employer and the balance was Rs. 11,302/-.

The MACT having regard to the aforesaid material determining the following compensation:

with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition, by the judgment and award impugned.

There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the award of compensation under the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side while under the head of loss of amenities is very meager calling for interference.

Claimant, a young lady aged 27 a Senior Software Engineer by avocation having suffered the injuries noticed supra, it is reasonable to award Rs. 15,000/- in addition to Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. P.W. 5 Doctor has spoken about the disability to the extent of 20 to 22% having regard to the lacerated wound on the nose measuring 4 x 1 cm and the fracture of nasal bones and anterior wall of left maxillary sinus. Hence, it is appropriate to award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.

The claimant/appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,36,300/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs. 24,300/- awarded by the MACT.

The claimant/appellant in MFA No. 30601/2012, it is borne out from the wound certificate Ex. P16, suffered one grievous injury and four simple injuries. P.W. 4 Dr. A.A. Magi, spoke to the disability of 35 to 40% suffered by the claimant. Claimant was employed in M. Phasis Ltd., as Manager and was reimbursed 50% of the medical bill Rs. 99,244/- and the balance of 50% was paid by him. The treatment extended to the appellant/claimant as indoor patient was from 04.05.2009 to 14.05.2009 for a period of 10 days and regard being had to the permanent disability to the right knee joint, the MACT awarded the following compensation:

with interest at 6% p.a. by the judgment and award of the MACT.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties examined the material on record, evidence both oral and documentary and regard being had to the fracture of the patella in the right knee joint and collateral ligament and patellar retinaculum tear coupled with the four minor injuries, it is just and proper to award Rs. 60,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the MACT. The award of Rs. 49,500/- towards medical expenses does not call for interference. Claimant will have to suffer the disability throughout his life time. Therefore, we think it appropriate to enhance compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of amenities while retaining the award of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges and nourishment as awarded by the MACT. Claimant is thus entitled to Rs. 2,19,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs. 1,09,500/-.

Appellants/claimants in MFA No. 30599/2012 are the parents of deceased Dr. Saba Fatima aged 23, unmarried, having obtained a degree in MBBS was working at Manipal Health Systems Pvt. Ltd., on a retainership fee of Rs. 10,387/-, per month, as on the date of accident and death. MACT reckoned Rs. 8,000/- p.m. as the income of the deceased and deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying multiplier 13 as applicable to the age of the younger of the parents calculated loss of dependency at Rs. 6,24,000/- to which was added Rs. 20,000/- towards loss to estate; Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and; Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, totaling to Rs. 6,59,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. by the judgment and award impugned.

There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the MACT was not justified in reckoning Rs. 8,000/- per month as the income of the deceased and failed to add 50% towards future prospects of a budding doctor in the medical profession as also not applying multiplier 18 as applicable to the age of the deceased to arrive at compensation towards loss of dependency.

The life of a young lady doctor was snuffed out at the threshold of her career while in the employment of Manipal Health Systems Pvt. Ltd. Certificate Ex. P5 of the employer discloses retainership fee of Rs. 10,387/- paid to the deceased, although the appointment order Ex. P6 states that the offer is for a consolidated sum of Rs. 16,000/- per month, therefore, reckoning Rs. 10,387/- as the monthly income of the deceased and adding 50% of the same towards future prospects and deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of dependency is Rs. 7,790.25/- and the annual loss Rs. 93,483/-.

While learned counsel for the appellant points out to the decision of the Apex Court in Munnalal Jain and Another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others , (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 347 following the three judge bench decision in Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan , (2013) 9 SCC 65 that the multiplier to be used is with reference to the age of deceased which in turn was following the decision in Sarla Verma vs. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121, per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that in all the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court there is no discussion over the judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs. Trilok Chandra and Others , (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 362 wherein it is observed that the multiplier should be as applicable to the age of the younger of the parents.

Regard being had to the decision in Reshma Kumari''s case we think it appropriate to apply multiplier ''18'' as applicable to age 23 of the deceased, entitling claimants to Rs. 16,82,694/- towards loss of dependency to which addition of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards love and affection for the parents, the total compensation that the claimants are entitled is Rs. 17,17,694/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition is just compensation as against Rs. 6,59,000/- awarded by the MACT.

In the result, the appeals are allowed-in-part and the judgment and award impugned modified as noticed supra and in all other respects remain unaltered.