Chinta Obula Reddy vs A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad, Hyderabad

The adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur in O.P.No.264 of 1987 dated 24-11-1989, is questioned by the appellant/claimant in this appeal. He had laid the claim u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short ''the Act'') to recover Rs. 30,000/-. TheTribunal awarded Rs.6,00/-. It is an injury-claim case. Aggrieved by that, the appeal is filed. The respondent is the owner of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AAZ 1899, which involved in the accident occurred on 13-6-1985 which is found to be due to the negligence of the driver which has become final.

The evidence available before the Tribunal is that of the claimant as PW1 and that of the doctors as PWs.2 and 3 and the documents Ex.Al, the discharge summary, Ex.A4 the case sheet, to prove the injuries and the disability. With such materials, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant has sustained injuries on the head, on the upper eye-lid with watering therefrom, a scar on the face and the fracture of the ankle bone leading to hospitalisation of the claimant and treatment by the concerned doctors. The claimant is found to be an agriculturist having got income of Rs.27,000/-which was doubted by the Tribunal, however, fixing some income. Based on that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.1,500/- towards medical expenses and Rs.1,500/- towards pain and suffering.

The learned advocate for the appellant contended that the reasoning of the Tribunal is not supported by the facts or the law; that the items of compensation awarded are not as per the settled law i.e., the income of the claimant fixed by the Tribunal without any reason, cannot be supported and that the total amount of compensation awarded is very low and it requires escalation.

Sri Govinda Raju, learned advocate who appeared on behalf of the Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, did his best to support the award of the Tribunal.

It is in the evidence, through the testimony of the doctors PWs.2 and 3, corroborating the testimony of the claimant himself, that due to the accident, the claimant suffered injury on the fore-head extending upto the left eye-lid resulting in the restriction of movement of the upper eye lid and watering therefrom, there was some problem with such an injury to the eye-lid. But, the reference to the eye specialist could not get any opinion; that he suffered disfiguration; he further suffered fracture of the right ankle; he was treated in the hospital for 17 days. It is true that the medical evidence did not fix the disability, either permanent, partial or complete. Such injuries were bound to produce pain and shock at the time of accident and pain and loss of amenities of life for atleast 3 to 4 months. For such an item, Rs.2,000/- by way of compensation would be reasonable. For fracture of any major bone, even without disability, the compensation ought to be Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. For the fracture of the bone involving ankle, with or without disability, the minimum compensation should be between Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, 1984 ACJ 3167 case, for the complex fractures involving Tibia, Fibula, Ribs and also disability in the ankle joint, a global compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- were awarded. In Pushpa Thakur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , Rs.1,00,000/- were awarded as global compensation for the injury to the ankle and on deformity of the leg. Therefore, in this case, Rs.15,000/- regarding the fracture of the ankle bone with temporary disability during the period of treatment, would suffice the ends of justice. For an eye injury, depending upon the nature and the extent of the disability, Rs.10,000/- and more can be awarded. Comparable cases in The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Kwaja Hussain Shaiksab, , Madras Motor case, 1975 ACJ 291, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation case, 1981 ACJ 53, Balbir Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and Another, and Nagappaiah and Others Vs. Bhaskara and Others, support such a view. In this case, the left eye is suffering the injury with a patent disability affecting restriction of movement of the upper eye-lid in addition to watering therefrom. Not less than Rs.10,000/- for such a injury could be justified by way of compensation.

The scar on the face is not only a physical disability, but also a social disability. The claimant aged 32 years, still to go a long way in the life span, with such a scar on the face, is bound to suffer mentally. Disfigurement is one of the items of compensation which should be awarded. Rs.5,000/- for that should be the minimum which can be awarded. For medical and incidental expenses, atleast Rs.2,000/- can be awarded. As rightly found, there was no proof of loss of income. However, during tie period of temporary disability, for about 3-4 months, an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer earning atleast Rs.600/- per mensem, loss of income should be round about Rs. 2,000/- and that should be awarded and the total would be thus, Rs.34,000/-. Thus, the claim of the claimant at Rs.30,000/- was very much justified, which the Tribunal unjustifiably did not allow. The award of the Tribunal deserves to be modified.

The appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled to recover Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation from the respondents with joint and several liability, with costs throughout and with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. This shall be subject to depositing of the amount as per the directions of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Sushamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others 1994 SCC (Cri.) 335.