Lalitaben Tulsidas vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

J.N. Bhatt, J.—The appellant, who is the original applicant, has filed this appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (''Act'' for short hereinafter).

The present appellant/original applicant filed an application for compensation for the personal injuries sustained by her arising out of a vehicular accident, u/s 110-A of the Act against the present respondent, who is the original opponent. She claimed, initially, an amount of Rs. 9,999/- by way of compensation. The applicant, subsequently, enhanced the claim to Rs. 40,000/- which was again reduced to Rs. 25,000/-.

The unfortunate accident occurred on 2.5.1978 at about 4 p.m., near Laxminarayan bus stand, in the city of Ahmedabad. The applicant, Lalita, was travelling in the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service bus (''AMTS bus'' for short hereinafter) No. CTA 8576. When she was getting down from the bus at Laxminarayan bus stand, at that time the driver of the bus all of a sudden started the bus, after hearing the bell rung by the conductor of the bus. Before she could alight from the bus, the bus started. As a result of this, she was thrown out of the bus. She sustained serious injuries on her legs. According to her case, her legs were crushed under the rear wheel of the bus. There was profuse bleeding after the accident and she was shifted to Shardaben Hospital, at Ahmedabad. She further contends that the accident in question occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, original opponent No. 1, who came to be deleted in the course of the proceedings. Opponent No. 2, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal, is the owner of the offending bus. The applicant claims Rs. 25,000/- for personal injuries sustained by her, from the original opponent No. 2, respondent herein, owner of the offending bus.

The opponent Corporation appeared and resisted the claim petition, by filing written statement, at Exh. 18. The claim was disputed. The allegation of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus was denied. It was contended that the applicant had tried to get down from the running bus and she was responsible for the accident. Thus the claim petition was resisted.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 3, at Ahmedabad (''Tribunal'' for short hereinafter) was pleased to hold that the applicant sustained personal injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus. The Tribunal awarded in all a sum of Rs. 13,500/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation with proportionate costs. The impugned award came to be passed on 18.3.1980. Thus Tribunal awarded Rs. 13,500/- by way of compensation, the break-up of which is as under:

Pain, shock and sufferings. Rs. 7,000/- Future economic loss. Rs. 6,000/- Medical expenses. Rs. 500/- Total Rs. 13,500/-

The remaining amount of Rs. 11,500/- was not awarded out of Rs. 25,000/- claimed by the applicant for the personal injuries.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of the claim for the remaining amount of Rs. 11,500/-the original applicant has now come up before this court challenging its legality and validity.

The controversy has shrunk down to a narrow dimension in this appeal. The question which is required to be examined and adjudicated upon is as to whether the appellant/original applicant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 11,500/- for personal injuries, which is not awarded by the Tribunal.

In order to appreciate the sole point posed before this court in this appeal, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts emerging from the evidence on record.

The applicant, Lalita, was aged about 19 and she was unmarried on the unfortunate day of the accident. She was studying in new SSC, i.e., 10th standard, at the relevant time. She could not complete 10th standard on account of the injuries and follow-up treatment. She has sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 25 per cent in the left lower limb. She is also unable to squat and sit in a cross-legged position. She is also unable to put on chappals. She is required to use special shoes or sandals. She had sustained injuries in both legs. There was crush injury.

The applicant, immediately after the accident, was shifted to Shardaben Hospital, at Ahmedabad, where she was admitted as an indoor patient. She was undergoing treatment for a period from May, 1978 to January, 1979. She remained as an indoor patient for more then 2l/2 months in Shardaben Hospital. She was treated by orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Nandkishor Parikh. She was also treated by two other doctors, i.e., Dr. Arvind C. Shah and Dr. M.M. Trivedi.

The orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Nandkishor Parikh is examined, at Exh. 58 and the medical certificate is produced, at Exh. 59. Dr. Parikh was working as an orthopaedic surgeon in Civil Hospital, at Ahmedabad since 1968 and since 1974 he is working as an honorary orthopaedic surgeon. According to the evidence of Dr. Parikh, Lalita, the original applicant, was limping on left side when he examined her last, on 31.1.1979. She was operated twice. A bone-grafting operation was also carried out. There is a permanent scar on left foot. There was a fracture in the left foot. There was no sensation on the said portion of the left foot. Ankle movement of the left foot was restricted upto 90 degree. There is also a permanent scar on the left ankle joint. She finds difficulty in climbing staircase and difficulty in walking on uneven ground. There is no sensation either on donor or grafted skin area. The applicant also finds difficulty in standing and walking for a long period, at a stretch. The facts, thus far stated, are no longer in controversy in this appeal.

The medical certificate issued by the R.M.O. of Shardaben Hospital, at Ahmedabad, is produced, at Exh. 29. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Nandkishor Parikh is produced, at Exh. 59. Indoor patient treatment and discharge cards are produced, at Exhs. 31,32 and 33. School leaving certificate is produced, at Exh. 36. Medical bills and receipts are also produced on record from Exhs. 37 to 57.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,000/- for pain, shock and sufferings. It is contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain, shock and sufferings is grossly inadequate. This submission is full of merits in view of the facts of the case narrated hereinbefore. To a young unmarried school-going girl, who has sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 25 per cent in her left lower limb and who has undergone excruciating pain for a long spell after sustaining crush injuries in a violent bus accident, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain, shock and sufferings is grossly inadequate. She was undergoing medical treatment for a long period of about nine months. She could not attend the school and suffered loss of academic year which would also aggravate mental pain. She was operated twice. She sustained a fracture injury. Her movements are restricted. She finds difficulty in walking for a long period at a stretch. She was taking drugs and treatment for a long period. She was under plaster for a long period. All these factors would undoubtedly contribute to the pain, shock and sufferings of a young school-going girl, aged 19. Therefore, considering the nature and number of injuries, permanent partial disablement and the pain, shock and sufferings suffered by the original applicant, the amount of Rs. 7,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain, shock and sufferings is grossly inadequate. Even by taking a liberal view, an amount of Rs. 12,000/- should be awarded to the original applicant under the head of pain, shock and sufferings in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the applicant is entitled to Rs. 12,000/- for pain, shock and sufferings. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,000/- under this head. Therefore, the applicant would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation for pain, shock and sufferings.

The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 6,000/- under the head of future economic loss. The assessment of the Tribunal under this head is also challenged. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant is likely to suffer economic loss of Rs. 450/- per annum. The Tribunal held that on account of physical impairment, she would require a maidservant to whom she would be required to pay Rs. 30/- per month. The Tribunal has simply held that the applicant would be required to pay Rs. 30/- per month for engaging a maidservant. It appears from the evidence on record that the Tribunal has taken a conservative view in the matter. Apart from the amount of Rs. 6,000/- awarded under the head of future economic loss on account of required engagement of a maidservant on account of permanent partial disablement, the applicant is also entitled to claim compensation for future economic loss as she is adversely affected in so far as her future employment prospects are concerned. The Tribunal has observed that in so far as the work of a clerk is concerned, she would not find difficulty in discharging clerical work. This observation proceeds on two hypotheses, i.e., firstly, that she is likely to get a job of a clerk and secondly, even after getting a job of a clerk, there would be no difficulty in discharging the job of a clerk. These two assumptions have no valid basis in the facts of the present case. At any rate, on account of permanent partial disablement, the bodily integrity of the applicant is affected, which, undoubtedly, would affect her chances of getting employment. One can safely conclude that the case of the applicant in the employment market is weakened to a certain extent. What job she would get in future would be a matter of anybody''s guess at present. However, undoubtedly, on account of the effect on bodily integrity and permanent partial disablement, while she would be entering into employment market, she will have a very weak case. The Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect. Even while taking a conservative view in the matter, it can safely be concluded that she should be suffering at least Rs. 50/- per month in future which would come to Rs. 50 X 12 = Rs. 600/- per annum. Looking to the age of the applicant, which is 19, multiplier of 15 will be reasonable. Therefore, the applicant would be entitled to Rs. 9,000/- at the minimum, under the head of future economic loss which she is likely to suffer. Therefore, the applicant would be entitled to Rs. 9,000/-towards the future economic loss. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,000/- under the head of future economic loss as the applicant would be required to engage a maidservant. Therefore, the claimant is now entitled to an additional amount by way of compensation under the head of future economic loss at Rs. 9,000/-.

In so far as the medical expenses and expenses for special diet are concerned, the applicant is entitled to more amount than what is awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has simply awarded Rs. 500/- for medical expenses. No amount is awarded under the head of special diet and transport charges. A young girl, having sustained serious injuries on two legs and undergoing excruciating pain for a spell of more than six months and undergoing treatment for about nine months, would undoubtedly be required to spend more than Rs. 1,500/- under the head of medical expenses, transport charges and special diet. Since the Tribunal has awarded only a meagre amount of Rs. 500/- the applicant is found entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- under this head.

In the result, the original applicant is found entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- under the aforesaid three heads. However, in this appeal, the applicant has restricted her claim to Rs. 11,500/-. The applicant, who is the appellant before this court, is entitled to the full amount as claimed in this appeal. Since the amount is restricted to Rs. 11,500/- it would not be now necessary to examine and assess the amount of compensation which would be awardable to the applicant under the head of loss of academic year and consequential effect on the prospects of matrimonial aspect.

In view of the special facts and circumstances of the present case, the nature and number of injuries, consequential effect on her bodily integrity who is a young school-going girl aged 19, who is unmarried and permanent scars, permanent restricted movements and permanent partial disablement to the extent of 25 per cent in the left lower limb, the claimant/appellant is found entitled to full amount of Rs. 11,500/- as claimed in this appeal from the original opponent/respondent, the owner of the offending bus.

The next question would arise as to what rate of interest should be awarded. The claimant/appellant could have been awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of application till realisation, which is proper according to the settled position of law on this point. The Tribunal has awarded 6 per cent interest from the date of the application till realisation on the amount awarded, i.e., Rs. 13,500/-. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the applicant would be further entitled to 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of the application till realisation on the additional amount of Rs. 11,500/- with full costs.

Lastly, it would be necessary to issue directions for the deposit of the additional amount together with interest and costs. Respondent/original opponent No. 2, the Corporation, owner of the offending AMTS bus, shall deposit before the concerned Tribunal the additional amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 11,500/- with interest and costs as aforesaid, within a period of 12 weeks from today.

The amount of compensation with interest, as aforesaid, shall be invested in a Government security or in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period not less than ten years and the applicant/appellant shall be entitled to the interest which shall accrue due thereon, periodically.

The applicant/appellant shall not be entitled to create any charge or encumbrance on the said amount invested in Government security or in fixed deposit without prior approval of the concerned Tribunal.

The amount of costs shall be paid to the applicant/appellant by account payee cheque.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the result, the appeal is allowed with costs and the impugned judgment and award would stand modified to the aforesaid extent.