AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.—First respondent filed a claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the appellant and his driver alleging that he received grievous injuries due to an accident caused by the vehicle belonging to the appellant on 12-12-1990 at about 1.15 p.m. when he was going along with his brother on a scooter.
The driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant chose to remain ex-parte.
Appellant filed its counter inter alia contending that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of its driver and that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.
In support of his case, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W. 2 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-13 and Ex.X-1. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the appellant or its driver.
The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant and awarded Rs. 1,03,437/- as compensation to the first respondent. Hence this appeal by the owner of the bus involved in the accident.
The learned Counsel for appellant did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. His only contention is that the compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the higher side.
The Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 46,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs. 22,800/- for loss of his earned leave and Rs. 2637/- towards damages to scooter.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal was in error in awarding Rs. 12,000/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment etc. though the first respondent did not produce any bills and that the Tribunal which awarded Rs. 46,000/- towards loss of earnings for a period of 11 1/2 months erred in awarding Rs. 22,800/- towards loss of earned leave of the respondent. The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that since the first respondent was in hospital for 3 1/2 months in the first spell and for 2 months for the second spell, it is clear that he was in hospital for nearly six months, and since, an attendant will have to attend on him the compensation awarded towards medical expenses is not excessive.
I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for first respondent. Though the first respondent might have been reimbursed the actual amount spent by him for purchase of medicines by his employer, the amount of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, extra nourishment, transport etc. cannot be said to be high, because, it comes to around Rs. 2.000/- per month, which is but reasonable.
Since first respondent who was drawn a salary of Rs. 4000/- per month was on leave for about 11 1/2 months, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs. 46,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment.
There is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal was in error in awarding Rs. 22,800/- towards loss of earned leave on the ground that he would have utilized that leave for some other purpose. The period of earned leave spent by the first respondent includes the 11 1/2 months period during which he was under treatment. When he is being compensated for the loss of earnings during the period of treatment, question of his again being granted compensation for loss of earned leave does not arise. If not utilized earned leave can be encashed. When on earned leave also he would have received his salary. So payment of compensation for the entire period, which includes the earned leave period, amounts to encashing of the earned leave. When respondent is compensated for the loss of earned leave, question of his again being compensated for loss of earned leave does not arise. So the Tribunal was in error in awarding Rs. 22,800/- towards loss of earned leave.
The amount of Rs. 2,637/- awarded towards damages to the scooter in view of Ex.A-6 bills cannot be said to be unreasonable or excess.
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,03,437/- minus Rs. 22,800/- = Rs. 80,637/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award is modified and an award is passed for Rs. 80,637/- with interest at 9% per annum from the dale of petition till the date of deposit into Court with proportionate costs in the Tribunal. Rest of the claim of the first respondent is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.