C. Jahender Reddy @ Jahind Reddy vs K. Sangameshwar Rao and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The injured-claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, ''Tribunal'') in M.V.O.P. No. 931 of 2002 dated 01.11.2004, awarding compensation of Rs. 33,500/- (Rupees thirty three thousand five hundred only) as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). Heard Sri V. Atchut Ram, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.K. Sridhar, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited and memo filed by the appellant vide USR No. 351 of 2012 stating that the 1st respondent/driver-cum-owner is not necessary party since he remained ex-parte in the Tribunal. In this regard, in Meka Chakra Rao Vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others, the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No. 12 held that statutory liability of the insurance company, in the absence of the owner of the crime vehicle in the appeal filed by the claimants, can be decided and maintainable as held in The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harijana Babakka and Others, for fixing statutory liability, the presence of the owner at the appellate stage is not necessary. The same was also quoted with approval in G. Aravind Kumar Rao Vs. Md. Sadat Ali and United India Insurance Co Ltd. . Thus, the contention that the appeal is not maintainable without impleading owner of the vehicle as co-respondent against the insurer of the vehicle is not sustainable thereby it can be taken up for hearing. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from nature of the injuries proved sustained, pain and sufferance therefrom, treatment undergone and amount incurred for the same and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.

Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?

To what result?

POINT-1:

The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 20.04.2002 at about 10.30 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver-cum-owner/1st respondent of the crime vehicle (Tipper bearing No. AP 31 T 6615) insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex. B.1 policy, same dashed against the motor cycle bearing No. AP 22 A 4939 being ridden by the Claimant, by name C. Jahender Reddy @ Jahind Reddy, aged about 25 years, Challampally Village, Thilakondapally Mandal, Mahaboobnagar district, private job in Vijaya Milk Co-operative Society, Champally village, earning of Rs. 5500/- p.m. and as a result, the claimant sustained grievous and simple injuries i.e. 1) lacerated injury on right hand, 2) fracture of right femur and 3) lacerated injury over left chin skin deep and a blunt injury on abdomen (as per Ex. A.3 medical certificate and Ex. A.4 discharge summery) which occurrence is covered by Ex. A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 128 of 2002 U/sec. 338 IPC and Ex. A.2 charge sheet. The Tribunal from the evidence of P.W.1-claimant with reference to Ex. A.3 medical certificate and Ex. A.4 discharge summery and other documentary evidence on record came to conclusion of P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries in the accident awarded Rs. 33,500/- viz., Rs. 15,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 15,000/- for pain and sufferance, Rs. 3,000/- for loss of earnings and Rs. 500/- for transport charges against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Said quantum is impugned as low by claimant and as high by the contesting respondent.

Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James 1965(1) All.E.R. 563, it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly 1963(2) All.E.R. 432 remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver 1969 (1) All.E.R. 555 observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, at paragraph No. 12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required.

From the above legal position, coming to the factual matrix, the injuries sustained by the claimant as per Ex. A.3 wound certificate are 1) lacerated injury 10 cm x 1 cm, on right hand, 2) fracture of right femur and 3) lacerated injury over left chin skin deep. As per Ex. A.4 discharge summery issued by Osmania General Hospital, the injured was admitted on 21.04.2002 and discharged on 23.05.2002 and was operated on 21.04.2002 and 17.05.2002 respectively for the fracture on right femur and fracture associated with bone deep of muscle. It was also noticed another injury which is a blunt injury on abdomen. As per Ex. A.4 the total injuries sustained by the claimant are four in number of which three are simple and the other one is grievous which is fracture of right femur. As per Ex. A.5 bunch of medical bills for Rs. 57,982/- showing incurred by the claimant, but as observed by the Tribunal from P.W.1 evidence in all he incurred Rs. 50,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded 15,000/- for medical expenses not believing version of P.W.1. Even the so called medical receipts issued by Srinivasa medical stores are uncorroborated with the Ex. A.3 medical certificate and A.4 discharge card issued by Osmania General Hospital to show that the claimant incurred that much expenditure for medicines during period of treatment. Now in view of the facts and circumstances, this Court while sitting in appeal a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses and transport charges can be taken as incurred by the claimant, besides compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the fracture injury to right femur including for pain and sufferance as it is a vital part of human being to rest on right leg, and Rs. 6,000/- for other three simple injuries, Rs. 6000/- for loss of earnings, Rs. 5,000/- for attendant and transport charges in all Rs. 62,000/- that can be just and reasonable to award. Coming to the rate of interest, the interest at 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal even not in dispute, as seen from the settled proposition or law in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, interest is awarded at 7 1/2% per annum by modifying and reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.

POINT -2:

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs. 33,500/- to Rs. 62,000/- (Rupees six two thousand only) with interest at 7 1/2% per annum from date of the claim petition till realization/deposit with notice. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit within one month said amount with interest from the date of petition, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.