Bhagirath vs Sugrivram and Others

S.K. Dubey, J.—The Appellant Bhagirath, S/o Laxmanji, aged about 60 years, vegetable vendor, met with an accident on 2.9.1978, by the use of motor cycle bearing registration No. CPF 1828, which was owned by Respondent No. 2, Bank of India and driven by the Respondent No. 1, Sugrivram s/o Ramprasad. The vehicle was insured at the relevant time by the Respondent No. 3, the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

As a result of the accident, the Appellant-claimant received severe multiple injuries, i.e., fracture in left leg resulting in 2.5" shortening and restriction of knee movement by 90 per cent. Another was a fracture of left hand wrist. Restriction of movement was by 10 per cent. The Appellant remained hospitalised for about a month and under plaster for one and a half month. Dr. V.K. Taore treated the Appellant, who issued a certificate, Exh. A/10, whereby the disability was assessed to the extent of 24 per cent because of shortening of the left leg. Doctor opined that because of the injuries the Appellant can walk only with the aid of sticks and cannot lift weight.

Tribunal, after recording of evidence of the parties, held that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving, all the three Respondents are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. The claimant was earning Rs. 150/- per month but loss of earning capacity was assessed at only Rs. 500/-(Sic. Rs. 50/-) per month. No compensation was awarded towards mental pain and sufferings. The total compensation awarded was Rs. 5,000/- towards general damages and Rs. 150/- towards expenses of medical treatment. This amount carried interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. Aggrieved by this award, passed by First Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 40 of 1979, the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Mr. Jain appearing for the claimant made twofold submissions that looking to the disability, loss of earning capacity and restricted movements, award of Rs. 5,000/- is too low, inadequate and is not just and fair. In support of his submissions, he relied on two comparable cases reported in the case of Avtar Singh v. Akal Bus and Transport Co. (P) Ltd. 1985 ACJ 568 (P&H), wherein for 30 per cent disability the compensation awarded was Rs. 35,000/-. Injury had resulted in shortening of right leg by 1 1/2" coupled with restriction in movement. Another case relied on is reported in Suresh singh v. Kamlesh, 1987 ACJ 429 (MP), in which the Division Bench for 10 per cent disability awarded Rs. 30,000/-. This 10 percent disability resulted from shortening of leg by 1" of the young boy of 16 years of age. In the same case, a claimant aged about 40 years who suffered disability of 20 per cent because of fracture of tibia and fibula and dislocation in right wrist was awarded Rs. 30,000/-. Another submission of Mr. Jain was with respect to award of interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment, in view of the highest judicial pronouncements and consistent view of this Court.

Mr. H.S. Oberai, appearing for the owner, submitted that in appeal no interference is called for, as the amount of compensation is neither too low nor inadequate. He supports his contention that the claimant is a vegetable vendor aged about 62 years having no issues or any of family members, as such the award is proper.

Mr. Samvatsar appearing for the insurance company supported the arguments of Mr. Oberai.

After hearing the learned Counsel, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed for the simple reason that the Tribunal has not considered the relevant factors in awarding the compensation. In the circumstances of the present case, the injuries resulted in shortening of the left leg by 2 1/2" and restriction in knee movement by 90 per cent besides disability in wrist. The Appellant could walk only with the help of sticks due to shortening of leg resulting in limping. It is a matter of common knowledge that such persons, i.e., vegetable vendors sell vegetables by sitting on the roadside or on cycle the last for earning their livelihood, bread and butter. One more aspect which was left over by the Tribunal was that the claimant is an old person. Younger persons recover early. Older persons suffer much more than the youngers. No compensation was awarded for mental pain and sufferings when the claimant remained under plaster for 1 1/2 month. In such a situation when the disability is in the leg and in the hand and considering comparable cases of this Court referred to in para 4 above the minimum compensation would be Rs. 40,000/- inclusive of the compensation for pain and suffering. As the claim was restricted to Rs. 30,000/- the award cannot be more than Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the amount of Rs. 30,000/-is just and fair for the injuries received causing permanent disabilities to the claimant.

Interest on the amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 30,000/- is awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment, in view of the pronouncement of apex court in cases of Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins 1985 ACJ 397 (SC) and Jagbir Singh and Others Vs. General Manager Punjab Roadways and Others, and consistent view of this Court.

The result is that the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified. The compensation awarded is Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 2.3.1979 till payment. Adjustments shall be given towards deposits if made by the insurance company. The compensation and interest shall be deposited by the insurance company, the Respondent No. 3, for payment to the claimant within six weeks from today. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/-, if certified.