Manu Prasad vs J. Krishna and Others

K.L. Manjunath , J.—This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T., Madikeri in M.V.C. No. 242 of 1997. The claimant Manu Prasad alias Avinash who was aged about 10 years was walking by the side of the road near his house at Madapatha on 1.9.1997. At about 12.45 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. KA 09-9697 he sustained injuries in the road accident to his head, waist, hip, back, etc. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Kushalanagar and, thereafter, he was shifted to B.M. Hospital, Mysore. He was there as in-patient for about 31 months. He underwent major surgery on the forehead and jaws. On the advise, he took ayurvedic treatment at Sheerangal, Kushalanagar Taluk for a period of three months. He was also taking treatment with neurosurgeon by name Dr. M.S. Bhaskar and one Dr. Gupta who was a psychiatrist respectively. Thereafter, he was admitted to NIMHANS for more than a year for his abnormal behaviour and the doctors diagnosed and opined no consciousness present and conduct disorder and again he was admitted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore, for post-traumatic syndrome (post head injury) since the attention of the claimant was shifting frequently. He was treated for a long period by Dr. Shobha Srinath, Psychiatrist, Neurosurgery Department at NIMHANS and also by Dr. Vidya Sagar, Neuropsychologist. According to them, organic personality of the claimant is changed, more of frontal lobe functions being affected and disability of 75 to 80 per cent in scholastic skill and he cannot live independently. He was also treated at Dental College, Sullya and Kushalanagar for the injuries sustained by him. He was also treated by a radiologist at Mysore, he was in continuous treatment for more than 5 years and still on treatment. Before the Tribunal two doctors were examined to show the disability caused to the claimant, one is Dr. Shobha Srinath and another is Dr. Vidyasagar. These two witnesses were examined on commission by the Tribunal. According to the father of claimant, he has spent more than Rs. 4,00,000 on medical treatment and further amount is required for future medical expenses. According to him, claimant cannot live independently and he has to depend upon another person for his day-to-day affairs. According to Dr. Shobha Srinath, cognitive school level of the claimant is only 20-25 per cent and the disability is 75 to 80 per cent in scholastic skill and in regard to his emotional behaviour he is unable to control his impulses and he will be suddenly prorogated even for simple causes and he cannot live independently. According to Dr. Vidyasagar, claimant is having poor spatial orientation, abstract ability, reasoning by analogy, his concept of forming ability is found to be inadequate, he has got difficulty in counting and conceptualizing quantities and associated numbers. He is learning through trial and error method, he belongs to the category of mild trade mental retardation, normal IQ range of a person would be between 90 and 110 whereas IQ level of the claimant is 68. He needs help from others and he has to be trained by a qualified professional and that he cannot lead an independent quality based life without the help of parents. Evidence of Dr. Shobha Srinath and Dr. Vidyasagar is not challenged since they were not cross-examined by the advocates who appeared for the respondent before the Tribunal. With these disabilities in spite of leading evidence the Tribunal without considering the compensation to be awarded on different heads, forgetting medical bills produced by the claimants which are running to lakhs of rupees, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 50,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum. Being not satisfied with the award of Claims Tribunal, present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence let in by the claimant which we have referred to in the earlier para, we are of the opinion that the appeal of the claimant has to be allowed and just and proper compensation is required to be awarded based on the evidence and disability caused to the claimant.

The boy was aged about 10 years on the date of accident and he was studying in school. He has to be looked after for the rest of his life by any one of the members of the family. In other words, he is not only a burden to himself and he is also burden to the family. Considering the nature and suffering and the date of the accident, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 50,000 under the head pain and suffering. The claimant had produced medical bills for a sum of Rs. 1,11,000. In addition to that, we have to see the expenses incurred by the claimant''s parents under the head attendant''s charges, conveyance, nourishment and stay at Bangalore, Mysore and in different places for over a period of 4 years. Therefore, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 under the head medical expenses, conveyance and the attendant''s charges. Since life of a young boy is taken away, he will continue to be a child till his death and since he cannot enjoy his life, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 under the head loss of amenities in life. We are also inclined to award further sum of Rs. 1,00,000 under the head future medical expenses as he requires constant medical check-up with psychiatrist for which he has to come all the way from Kushalanagar to Bangalore or to Mysore with parents and for their stay either in Mysore or in Bangalore during the period of treatment. We cannot assess the loss of income because the Tribunal or this Court cannot guess what was the future of the boy. However, we are of the opinion that at least a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 has to be awarded under the future loss of income since he has to depend upon others for his livelihood for the rest of his life and one attendant is required till his death as he cannot live independent life. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum.

In many cases, we have been observing that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals without considering oral and documentary evidence adduced by claimants, mechanically are awarding meagre compensation. In the instant case, when the parents of the claimant have produced the actual medical bills amounting to Rs. 1,11,000 and when the parents of the claimant who are from a village in Kodagu District were forced to stay in Bangalore, Mysore and in different places in order to get treatment of their son for years together and when the parents of the claimant have spent so much money only for medical treatment, Tribunal is not expected to award total compensation of Rs. 50,000 which is not even half of the amount spent by them towards medical expenses. Therefore, it is the duty of all the Claims Tribunals to consider the claim petitions having due regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants, loss of income by claimant or parents during the treatment and disability caused to the claimants. Similarly, we have also noticed that in cases of death, Claims Tribunals are in the habit of awarding meagre compensation of Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 without considering the income of the deceased, loss of dependency, age of the deceased and even under conventional heads meagre amount of Rs. 2,000 or Rs. 3,000 is being awarded under the head loss of consortium when the age of widow was 20 to 25 years. Therefore, it is for the Tribunals to award just and proper compensation in all cases by application of mind having due regard to the evidence let in by the parties.

4.1. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 8,00,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the claimant represented either by his father or mother permitting the father or mother to draw periodically interest, initially for a period of 5 years and thereafter shall be renewed from time to time and it shall not be released to the parents without the leave of this Court or the Tribunal. Rest of the amount be released to the father of the claimant since he has spent considerable amount towards treatment. Eight weeks time is granted for the respondent insurance company to deposit the money.