AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The injured-claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') in M.V.O.P. No. 87 of 2002 dated 02.07.2004, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,09,500/- (Rupees one lakh nine thousand five hundred only) as against the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). Heard Sri M. Subramanyam, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.S.G. Radhakrishna, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited. Service of notice was dispensed with against the 1st respondent-owner of the crime vehicle and 3rd respondent-driver by mentioned as not necessary party. In this regard, in M. Chakradhara Rao v. Y. Baburao 2001 (1) AIT 495 DB, the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No. 12 held that statutory liability of the insurance company, in the absence of the owner of the crime vehicle in the appeal filed by the claimants, can be decided and maintainable as held in The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harijana Babakka and Others, for fixing statutory liability, the presence of the owner at the appellate stage is not necessary. The same was also quoted with approval i G. Aravind Kumar Rao Vs. Md. Sadat Ali and United India Insurance Co Ltd. Thus, the appeal is maintainable without impleading owner of the vehicle as co-respondent against the insurer of the vehicle and thereby taken up the appeal for hearing and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from the nature of the injuries proved sustained, pain and sufferance there from, treatment undergone, amount incurred for the same and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.
Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?
To what result?
POINT-1:
The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 11.11.2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing No. AP 16/T-4377) belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex. B.1 policy (stands in the name of 3rd respondent), came in opposite direction, dashed against the Hero Honda Motor Cycle on which the claimant was proceeding by name M. Venkateswarlu Naidu S/o. Lokanadham Naidu, aged 27 years, resident of Sullurpet, Nellore district, Mosaic business by avocation, as a result the claimant sustained grievous injuries (as per Ex. A.2 medical certificate and A.4 discharge summery), which occurrence is covered by Ex. A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 146 of 2001 u/s 338 IPC and Ex. A.3 charge sheet. As per the claimant-P.W.1''s evidence coupled with Ex. A.2 medical certificate and Ex. A.4 discharge summery, he sustained fracture injury and spent Rs. 47,000/- for treatment of said injuries and filed Ex. A.6 bunch of bills only for Rs. 7,200/- (Rupees seven thousand two hundred only). However, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, having found said injuries i.e. fracture to temporal bones resulting in right frontal contusion and operation undergone for it, injury on the upper lip and disfiguration over the upper lip, sustained by the claimant (P.W.1) and described in Ex. A.2 read with Ex. A.4 as grievous injuries, with finding of 15 to 20% of disability as per the evidence of medical officer, simply awarded in all compensation of Rs. 1,09,500/- (Rupees one lakh nine thousand and five hundred only) against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant in support of the grounds of the appeal that the compensation awarded is unjust, unreasonable and the Tribunal is erred in awarding such a meager amount though it was supposed to award just compensation by taking consideration of the nature of injuries referred in Ex. A.2 and A.4, proved by the evidence of P.W.1 with reference to it and from Ex. A.6 bills, from nature of injuries including the fracture, its pain and sufferance, loss of earnings and for the treatment required, though not believed any permanent disability to apply multiplier method of structured formula. The 2nd respondent-Insurer contended that besides the amount awarded is excessive to reduce and rate of interest also requires to be reduced and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James, 1965 (1) All. E.R. 563 it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn L.J. in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly 1963 (2) All. E.R. 432 remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in LORD v. in 555 All.E.R (1) 1969 Cleaver, Parry Morris>observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, at paragraph No. 12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required.
As the grievous injuries are proved and taken note of by the Tribunal even in its award observations, besides the amount incurred for medical expenses and treatment; this Court there from holds that the amount of Rs. 1,09,500/- (Rupees one lakh nine thousand and five hundred only) awarded by learned Chairman of the Tribunal is in no way just compensation. On perusal of the record, as per the Ex. A.2 wound certificate-issued by Primary Health Centre, Nayudupet, Nellore district -cum-inpatient treatment and discharge summery issued by Vijaya Health Centre, Chennai, there is a deep-cutting and lacerated injury over the upper lip -2-Nos., Horizontal, 10 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm through and through up to bonny level, lower, lateral and central incession, dislocated, covering, out from the route, bleeding from the nasals and both ears, and the patient was in unconscious condition and opined as grievous in nature and Ex. A.4 discharge summery-cum-inpatient treatment summery shows the claimant sustained the injury to his head and face and underwent treatment for left temporal craniotomy and evaluation of EDH done on 11.11.2001 and lacerated injury over upper lip/and Ala of nose sutured on 12.11.2001 and sutures removed on 12.11.2001 and the condition of the patient was satisfactory by the date of discharge.
Thus, the contention of the appellant that the trial court went wrong in disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 doctors who stated 40% disability of permanent nature suffering by the P.W.1 is not tenable from the very fact that the Ex. A.4 discharge summery issued by the Vijaya Health Centre, Chennai nowhere speaks any disability and it is crystal clear of the observations while discharging on 24.11.2001 that the condition of the patient was satisfactory. However, the fact remains that the fracture sustained to the skull bone (fracture to temporal bones) is a severely grievous one in the vital part of the body and thereby for the said injury including for the pain and suffering met by the injured-claimant the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal not requires interference to reduce. However, coming to medical expenses though the bills submitted of Vijaya Health Centre covered by Ex. A.5 are to a sum of Rs. 83,727-35 ps., the Tribunal without assigning any reason as to why not believed the bills or part of the claim, for awarding only Rs. 47,000/- though it has to be accepted in toto; thereby this Court towards medical expenses as incurred by the claimant from Ex. A.5 bills for an amount of Rs. 83,730/- awarded the same; for transport charges covered by Ex. A.6 receipts of Rs. 7200/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 5000/- by not assigning any reasons and hence the same is also considered for Rs. 7200/-; for the simple injury to the nose, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2000/- which is not interfered with and for the loss of earnings during the period of treatment, an amount of Rs. 4500/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 2,500/- as the period of treatment is only for 24 days as per Ex. A.4 discharge summery and for attendant charges an amount of Rs. 1500/-, is awarded and in all it comes to Rs. 1,47,000/- which is a just compensation.
Having regard to the above, by taking consideration of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment undergone, expenditure incurred for treatment and for pain and sufferance, an amount of Rs. 1,47,000/- is as just and reasonable to award. Coming to the rate of interest, though the interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal even not in dispute, from the settled proposition of law including from the expression of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, , Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (SC), interest is awarded at 7 1/2% per annum by modifying and reducing from 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.
POINT -2:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs. 1,09,500/- (Rupees one lakh nine thousand and five hundred only) to Rs. 1,47,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty seven thousand only) with interest at 7 1/2% per annum from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with notice. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit said amount with interest within one month from today, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the half of amount and to deposit the remaining in F.D. for 3 (three) years. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.