AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.C. No. 1082 of 1989 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, awarding a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant/claimant in an accident that has taken place on 1-12-1988 at about 5-45 p.m. in Anandanagar at the junction of the 5th Main Road while appellant was the pillion rider in the scooter bearing No. CAX 8477, which was hit by a jeep bearing No. MYE 7575, resultant effect of which was the injuries sustained by the appellant.
It appears that the appellant was a retired Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry and Soil Science in the University of Agricultural Sciences College, Hebbal. He has several academic distinctions and associated member of several important committees. It was his case that the driver of the jeep was negligent and the accident in question had occurred. He claimed Rs. 3,86,000/- as compensation for the injuries caused to him.
The driver of the jeep who was made second respondent before the Trial Court has remained absent and was placed ex parte. The third respondent, the insurance company alone filed objections admitting the validity of the policy issued in favour of the first respondent. Non-joinder of the parties was raised in the objection statement, but the same was cured later by the amendment under which they were made respondents 4 to 6. It was further stated in the objection statement that the accident was due to the contributory negligence to the extent of 100 per cent by the scooterist and it was not due to the negligence of the jeep driver alone.
On the above pleadings framing an issue on the question of negligence on the part of either the jeep driver or the scooterist, the Court below came to the conclusion on the evidence adduced that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. MYE 7575 driven by the second respondent.
On the question of quantum, the Court below has granted a total sum of Rs. 83,000/- on the following heads:
1.
For shock, pain and suffering
30,000/-
2.
Medical expenses
20,000/-
3.
Loss of income during the period of treatment
9,000/-
4.
Loss of earning capacity or future income
19,000/-
5.
Loss of amenities in life
5,000/-
Total
83,000/-
Feeling aggrieved by the amount of quantum and complaining that the same is inadequate, the claimant has come forward with the present appeal.
Mr. Sundara Murthy appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a highly qualified technical person. He was a retired Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry and Soil Science. He was Consultant in soil testing, fertiliser and other related agricultural purposes. He further submitted that the injuries that were sustained were grievous in nature and that the appellant was in-patient in the hospital for about four and half months; during which period he underwent four operations on different points of time. It was further submitted that a claim of Rs. 50,000/- ought to have been granted for medical expenses. Taking into consideration the duration of his stay in the hospital as well as operations conducted on him a further claim of Rs. 20,000/- was made for future medical expenses and cost of the treatment on the ground that even after operation he was not well and the total disability was 72.5%. Therefore in respect of future medical expenses, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a minimum of Rs. 20,000/-. He further claimed that the damages for grievous injury and permanent disability ought to have been fixed at Rs. One Lakh, apart from damages for mental shock, pain and suffering at reasonable sum of Rs. One Lakh. It was further submitted that he was the consultant and because of the accident he lost his power and not able to continue the consultancy service and his excellence in education could not be utilised either in public service or for his personal earning capacity.
On the other hand, Mr. R. Jayaprakash appearing for respondents 1 and 3 submitted that the scooterist is also responsible for the accident and the finding on the issue regarding negligence ought to have been against the appellant as contributory negligence was 100% on the part of the scooterist. Even on the quantum, according to the learned Counsel, it is on the higher side and a man who is aged about 64 years on the date of the accident has been adequately compensated for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident.
We have considered the submissions made by the respective Counsels.
The fact that the claimant was a retired Professor from the University of Agricultural Sciences and that he has been attending various examination evaluation and consultancy meeting is not in dispute. The appellant was also a member of the River Valley Basin Master Plan Preparation and also a member of the Karnataka Pollution Control Advisory Board. No doubt his income was only Rs. 1,500/-, but the status he was enjoying in life cannot be compensated or cannot be paid in terms of the income he got only as a sitting fee for attending the meetings of the members mentioned above. The appellant has been very precise in correctly speaking about monthly income at Rs. 1,500/- and the Court has taken that as the correct income and calculation and granted a sum of Rs. 9,000/- for loss towards the income taking into consideration the fact that he was in-patient in the hospital for nearly six months. That loss of income for the period of nine months which is based on the saying of the appellant [cannot be] valid and the same is confirmed.
So far as the shock, pain and suffering is concerned, we find that there is total disability of 72.5% and an old man who wants to live peacefully in the evening of his life has suffered injuries which are certainly grievous in nature. The injuries suffered by him are as follows:
"Lacerated wound lower 1/3 (L) leg extending circumferentially around the leg. Grostonemies muscle cut and exposed. Post-tibia + toe mounts exposed great toe + compound fracture of both bones of (L) leg with arsenic injury; fracture of (F) clavicle".
There was comminuted fracture of left tibia with skin loose which was found to he a compound fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of right clavicle. It appears he was in the hospital for the first spell from 1-12-1988 to 13-2-1989. But though he was discharged, he found suffering continued because of the injuries sustained by him and he was obliged to get himself re-admitted in a private nursing home and then again he got himself admitted in Victoria Hospital till 20-2-1989 and was there as in-patient till 20-4-1989. He has been operated there, skin grafting has been done and external fixtures were applied and subsequently POP was applied. Thus suffering was for a period of more than four months 19 days cannot be compensated in the way in which the Trial Court has given the quantum. It is also seen that after he got himself admitted again in the hospital on 22-6-1989 for four days and electrical stimulator was applied at the fracture site for ten days to set right the fracture. Thus, he had to undergo enormous pain and injury and suffering and in our opinion we feel that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be granted under the head of shock, pain and suffering.
So far as medical expenses is concerned, the appellant has claimed Rs. 50,000/- as medical expenses in the claim petition and the Court below has granted only Rs. 9,663/- for medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for future medical expenses including conveyance and incidental charges. Taking into consideration the period of his stay in the hospital as in-patient about 145 days and he having undergone four operations, we feel that grant of Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses will be proper. In respect of earning capacity or future income, the Trial Court granted a sum of Rs. 19,000/- taking into consideration only the income earned by him when he was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month, which he himself claimed. Being a Consultant his services might have been requisitioned by various other organisations and such future income cannot be so much at a small sum of Rs. 19,000/-, taking into consideration his qualifications and he being associated with so many institutions, including the ''River Valley Basin Master Plan Preparation'', we feel it proper to grant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards earning capacity or future income.
So far as loss of amenities in life is concerned, the Court below has granted only Rs. 5,000/-. The Court below relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 and though finds that the appellant has lost certain amenities in life and he could not walk and cannot sit, it has granted only a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, which we feel is grossly inadequate. On that head, we propose to grant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as loss of amenities. Thus, the total sum item-wise comes to Rs. 1,45,000/- taking into consideration the age of the person, qualifications, we round the compensation to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, namely, Rs. 83,000/-, shall stand enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/-and an award be drawn in favour of the appellant for the said sum.
So far as interest is concerned, 6% interest has been granted by the Trial Court. In line, we feel grant of 6% is certainly on the lower side and we feel it proper to grant interest at 9% on the total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the date of the petition till the date of payment.
The appeal is allowed partly. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.