AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2001 passed by a learned Judge of this
Court in C.M.A. No. 596 of 2001 confirming the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) made
in M.C.O.P. No. 1875 of 1998 dated 28.11.2000.
The appellant preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''the Claims Tribunal'') claiming
compensation of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, and the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 95,178.47 and the award of the Claims Tribunal was
confirmed by the learned Judge of this Court. The brief facts are that the appellant was going in a scooter on 6.2.1998 with his wife on the Ennore
Express Road, Chennai in north-south direction at about 5.15 p.m. The lorry belonging to the first respondent came from behind and hit against the
appellant causing grievous injuries. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry
driver and the finding was confirmed by the learned Judge of this Court. We confirm the finding of the learned Judge as we find that the finding is
based on evidence and there are no reasons to take a different view on the finding of rash and negligence in driving of the vehicle by the lorry
driver.
The appellant has claimed compensation under several heads totalling a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. As far as compensation arising on account of
permanent disability is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has found, on the basis of evidence, that the claimant had suffered 45% of disability on
account of the accident and fixed the compensation at Rs. 45,000/-. We find that the amount of Rs. 45,000/- is quite reasonable.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that the Claims Tribunal as well as the learned Judge was not correct in
rejecting the claim of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of earning and that amount should have been awarded. There is no
dispute that the appellant was working as Fitter in Ennore Thermal Power Station and retired from service in June, 1998. The accident occurred
on 6.2.1998. The Claims Tribunal found that there are no materials to show that the appellant was on leave without pay from February, 1998 till
the date of superannuation as the appellant has not chosen to examine any independent witness, nor any documentary evidence was produced to
show that he suffered loss of income from the date of accident till the date of superannuation. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before
us that the appellant had retired from service at the end of June, 1998 and the appellant had availed the leave and though he availed the leave with
pay, still the appellant would be entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income. Learned counsel for the appellant, in this
connection, relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in B. Anandhi Vs. R. Latha and Another, where the Bench held that where
the injured was on leave at the time of accident, the mere fact that he received salary for leave period is not a ground to hold that he would not be
entitled to get compensation for loss of earning. Learned counsel strongly relied on the decision in Anandhi''s case and submitted that the appellant
is entitled to claim compensation for loss of earning from the month of February, 1998 to June, 1998 when he retired from service.
We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that there is no evidence at all by the
appellant, either oral or documentary, to show that the appellant went on leave without pay from February, 1998 to June, 1998. Further, the
appellant has not produced any evidence to show that there was actual loss of income due to the accident and no documentary evidence was
produced to show that the appellant had suffered loss of income during the period due to the accident. The appellant has not even taken steps to
examine anyone from Ennore Thermal Power Station to prove that the appellant was on leave without pay, nor is there any evidence to show that
the appellant was entitled to encash the leave which he could not do because he availed leave for four months prior to his retirement due to the
accident.
As far as the decision of this Court in B. Anandhi Vs. R. Latha and Another, is concerned, though a cursory reading of the decision shows that
the claimant would be entitled to compensation for loss of earning though he received salary for the period in question, on a deeper consideration,
we are of the view that the ratio of the decision does not apply to the facts of the case as there are no materials before the Claims Tribunal to show
that he was on leave without pay. There are no materials also even to show that he was unable to encash the leave due to the fact that he availed
the leave from February, 1998 to June, 1998 when he retired from service. Hence, we are in agreement with the view of the learned Judge that the
claimant is not entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income for the period from February, 1998 to June, 1998.
The second ground of challenge is with reference to the amount of medical expenses. The appellant has claimed a total sum of Rs. 1 lakh
towards medical expenses and produced the bills under Exs.P-4 to P-8 in support of the claim. On the basis of Exs.P-4 to P-8 it was found that
the appellant had spent a sum of Rs. 43,678.47 being the amount fully covered by the bills and that amount was also awarded. The submission of
learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had been treated not only in Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai, but also in a private
nursing Home called, Sugam Hospital, Chennai as an inpatient and he was taking treatment as an outpatient and some of the medical bills were not
preserved and could not be produced due to the reason that some of the relatives of the claimant though purchased the medicines had not
preserved the bills and a realistic view of the entire situation should be taken and the entire amount claimed towards medical expenses should be
awarded. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Manju Devi and Others Vs. State of Haryana
and Others, wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that it could not be lost sight of that the anxiety of the relatives would be to save the
life of the injured and not to collect evidence in support of compensation on account of his likely demise. Though the decision of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court is not applicable, yet, we cannot be completely oblivious of the situation that some of the medical bills might not have been
preserved. The fact remains that the appellant was admitted in Government Stanley Hospital and later he was treated as an inpatient in a private
nursing Home and he has also taken treatment as an outpatient. Learned counsel for the appellant has also produced before us the discharge
summary (Ex.P-2) given by Sugam Hospital to show the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant wherein it is stated that the appellant was
advised to take further treatment and the period of treatment. Hence, it is possible that the appellant might not have preserved all the bills.
Considering the nature of the injuries, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses would be quite
reasonable and we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and reject the claim of the appellant for the balance amount.
The next ground of challenge is the award of Rs. 4,000/- towards pain and sufferings. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as
there was a fracture of left leg, and other injuries were superfluous in nature. Learned Judge also held that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- for pain and
sufferings would be reasonable. Though learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant is entitled to compensation of
Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and sufferings, we find that the Claims Tribunal had the opportunity to see the appellant in person when it fixed the
compensation at Rs. 4,000/- for pain and sufferings and there are no evidence contra to hold that the amount of Rs. 4,000/- fixed is not
reasonable. We find that the learned Judge has taken into account the nature of injuries and held that the appellant would be entitled to
compensation of Rs. 4,000/- towards pain and sufferings. We do not find any reason to take a different view on this aspect.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded towards transport expenses which is quite meagre. The
Claims Tribunal found that the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards transport expenses and the learned Judge has also
affirmed the finding. We hold that the amount of Rs. 1,000/- awarded towards transport expenses is quite reasonable and there is no evidence also
to show that the amount awarded is insufficient and not correct. In this connection, it is also relevant to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in
STATE OF HARYANA v. JASBIR KAUR AIR 2003 SCW 4198 where the Supreme Court held that the expression, ''just'' compensation u/s
168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 denotes that the compensation amount should be equitable, fair, reasonable and not-arbitrary. The supreme
Court also held that what would be ''just'' compensation is a vexed question and there can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring
the value of human life or a limb. The Supreme Court also held that there must be material before the Court to arrive at the compensation and the
compensation cannot be awarded as a windfall for the victim and the statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be just and it
cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit, but the same should not be a pittance. Applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Jasbir
Kaur''s case AIR 2003 SCW 4198 we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Judge except in the case of medical expenses
which is enhanced to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from Rs. 43,678.47.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation towards medical expenses is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- and in other respects,
the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is entitled to interest on the balance amount at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.
In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.