M. Lakshmi Chitra vs Rahul Bhikaji Bhutal

A.R. Joshi, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties, on this first appeal preferred by the original claimant challenging the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao.

The injury claim by the appellant/claimant, then aged 38 years, unmarried, employed, stenographer by profession, is instituted for total compensation of 6 lakhs. The appellant/claimant suffered two fractures one on the right tibia and second on the right humerus in an accident on 04.03.2008. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no. 1. The vehicle of respondent no. 1 during the relevant time was insured with the present respondent no. 2. When the appellant/claimant was crossing the road, she was given a dash by respondent no. 1 by Innova motor car which he was driving. So far as, rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no. 1 is concerned, there is no dispute on this aspect and the insurance company has objected on the quantum of compensation. In fact, the awarded amount is already paid to the appellant/claimant.

In view of the above, the only limited scope for the present appeal is whether the amount of compensation awarded of Rs. 1,77,800/- to the appellant/claimant is just and proper or whether it is required to be enhanced?

Certain amounts arrived by the learned Tribunal can be narrated as under. On the aspect of medical bills the Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,000/-, though the actual bills were about Rs. 14,965/- i.e. rounded to Rs. 15,000/-. An amount of Rs. 1,350/- is awarded towards ambulance charges. So far as, travel of appellant/claimant to and fro to the office after the accident after she resumed duty is concerned the awarded amount is Rs. 12,000/-. So far as, attendant charges are concerned, Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,500/- per month and as such, for 10 months awarded total amount of Rs. 27,000/-. At this juncture, it must be mentioned that Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Attendant was required to assist the claimant for a period of 10 months. However, it was erroneous calculation to award Rs. 27,000/- for 10 months when attendant charges were Rs. 4,500/- per month. Attendant charges if taken as Rs. 4,500 then the actual amount has to be Rs. 45,000/-. The amount of Rs. 48,325 was awarded by the Tribunal for loss of salary of five months. Admittedly the net salary of the claimant was about Rs. 12,000/- and odd. In the opinion of this Court, the awarded amount is required to be enhanced suitably as mentioned in the latter part of this order. So far as 20% disability as mentioned in the Medical certificate by the attending Doctor, the Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and further the amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded under the head on account of loss of future prospects of marriage due to injury and difficulty in walking. Further, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering.

It is argued on behalf of the appellant/claimant and it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 22,500/- is required to be awarded as the actual bills towards travel were produced. Instead, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 12,000/- as the bill amount. This Court has carefully gone through the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal on this aspect and considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering her need to attend her office which is at a distance of about 5 kms. from her residence, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal need not be altered. So far as, amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards 20% disability of the appellant, it is the submission on behalf of the claimant that the said amount awarded is much less and the Tribunal has not given any reasoning as to how amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been arrived. On this aspect, learned Counsel for respondent-2 submitted that there is a distinction between physical disability and earning disability of the claimant and physical disability cannot be equated with the earning disability though at times they can be equated when the person is required to do physical work like a labour. The claimant in the present case is working as a stenographer and there is nothing on record that claimant is unable to work as stenographer after the accident due to the injury to the right hand. On this count, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs. 50,000 given towards the disability caused to the claimant need not be altered and it can be taken as just amount. So far as, amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards future prospects of marriage again, there is no need to alter the said amount, still considering the age of the appellant/claimant and injury sustained by her mainly to the leg.

Considering the rival submissions and the material available on record in the opinion of the Court the following amounts can be awarded under different heads:-

Rs. 15,000/-: actual medical bills

Rs. 1,350/-: ambulance charges

Rs. 12,000/-: travel charges

Rs. 45,000/-: attendant charges

Rs. 60,000/-: loss of salary for five months

Rs. 50,000/-: physical disability and loss of further comforts of life

Rs. 20,000/-: loss of future prospects of marriage

Rs. 10,000/-: pain and suffering for sustaining two fractures.

The total compensation in view of the above observation comes to Rs. 2,13,350/- and rounded to Rs. 2,15,000/- and in the considered opinion of this Court this amount is just compensation which can be awarded. As such, the present appeal is disposed of with the following order:

ORDER

(i) The appeal no. 121 of 2010 is partly allowed.

(ii) The compensation granted to the appellant i.e. Rs. 1,77,800/- is enhanced to Rs. 2,15,000/-.

(iii) The additional amount to be paid by respondents jointly and severally to the appellant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim till payment.

(iv) There are no orders as to costs.

The appeal stands disposed off.