AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,
These appeals are taken up for final disposal by consent of parties. Both these appeals, involve claims for compensation, arising out of the same",,
vehicular accident. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.Â",,
On 04.09.2016, Mrs. Ana Mendes and her daughter Ms. Sonata Mendes, were proceeding from Taleigao to Miramar on a Hero Honda Activa",,
scooter, bearing no. GA-07/V-2526. Ana Mendes was riding the scooter, while Sonata Mendes was the pillion rider. When they reached near",,
Vassant Vihar Building at 19:45 hours, they were hit by a Maruti Alto car bearing no. GA-01/S-7157, which came from behind. The Maruti car was",,
driven by the respondent no. 1 and it was covered by a policy of insurance, issued by the respondent no. 3, which was valid on the date of the",,
accident. Both, Ana Mendes and Sonata Mendes suffered injuries on account of the accident and were required to be treated and have suffered",,
permanent disablement on account of the injuries suffered in the accident.Â,,
Ana Mendes filed Claim Petition No. 114/2016, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji seeking a compensation of Rs.25",,
lakhs against the respondents, while Sonata Mendes filed Claim Petition No. 113/2016, also seeking a compensation of Rs.25 lakhs against the",,
respondents.,,
The Tribunal by separate judgments and award dated 01.12.2017, has partly allowed the petitions. While Ana Mendes has been granted a",,
compensation of Rs.4,78,212/-, Ms. Sonata Mendes has been granted a compensation of Rs.5,69,843/-. The Tribunal has also allowed interest at the",,
rate of 9% per annum, on the amount of compensation, from the date of filing of the petition, till realisation. The compensation so granted is",,
inclusive of the compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act, for short). Feeling aggrieved by the inadequate compensation",,
granted, the original claimants have filed these appeals.",,
I have heard Shri Afonso, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Kakodkar the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no.",,
3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.Â",,
First Appeal No. 87/2018,,
It is submitted by Shri Afonso, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 5% on",,
account of fracture to the left humerus (shoulder). It is submitted that the appellant is serving as a Senior Special Assistant, with the State Bank of",,
India and was required to take leave from 04.09.2016 to 29.01.2017 and has suffered loss on account of the fact that she would now be unable to get,,
leave encashment for the said period. It is submitted that the Tribunal has although considered this aspect, has restricted the compensation to the basic",,
salary for the aforesaid period. The contention is that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the full salary for the said period, for the loss of paid leave,",,
which comes to about Rs.4,07,690/-. Secondly, it is contended that the compensation granted towards pain and suffering at Rs.25,000/- is on the",,
lower side. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation of Rs.1 lakh under this",,
head. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to grant any compensation on account of loss of future prospects. It is submitted that the Supreme,,
Court has now laid down the principles of standardization of the heads under which the compensation needs to be granted, which is not followed by",,
the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the compensation under Section 166 of the Act has to be granted on similar considerations, as that",,
of Section 163-A of the Act. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, in order to decide the compensation towards loss of future",,
earning capacity and future prospects, the income in the present case will have to be taken, without deducting the tax. In the submission of the learned",,
Counsel for the appellant, the net income i.e. after deducting the tax can only be taken in a death case. Â It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to",,
award costs.,,
Shri Kakodkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has supported the impugned judgment and award. It is submitted that the Tribunal",,
has in fact been generous enough, in awarding compensation under the various heads and the compensation granted, can by no means be said to be",,
inadequate. It is submitted that the Tribunal is required to grant “just compensation†and the claimant cannot seek windfall by way of,,
compensation, arising out of the unfortunate accident. It is submitted that admittedly, the appellant continues in service and there is no evidence of loss",,
of future earnings on account of loss of promotional prospects or otherwise. Insofar as the compensation for loss of leave is concerned, it is",,
submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly restricted the compensation to basic salary. It is submitted that the compensation towards pain and,,
suffering is also just and proper.Â,,
First Appeal No. 94/2018,,
It is submitted by Shri Afonso, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has suffered head injury, resulting into 20% disablement on",,
account of inability to smell. It is submitted that the appellant was 18 years of age and was a student of Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) at,,
the time of the accident. It is submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate on all the heads. It is submitted that the,,
appellant had suffered severe brain injury with a possibility of epilepsy attacks. As such, adequate compensation ought to have been granted for loss",,
of future prospects, including the loss of enjoyment of life and loss of marriage prospects. It is also submitted that the Tribunal failed to award",,
costs. Â,,
The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi & Another,",,
(2014) 11 SCC 178, S. Perumal Vs. K. Ambika & Another, (2015) 11 SCC 411, Narendra Singh Vs. Nishant Sharma & Another, (2015) 14 SCC 353,",,
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 and Jagdish Vs. Mohan & Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571.Â",,
Shri Kakodkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the award is generous and both the awards have already been",,
satisfied. It is submitted that the appellant is not suffering from epilepsy. However, the Doctor has only opined that the head injury could lead to",,
epilepsy. It is submitted that the compensation has to be just.,,
The learned Counsel has submitted that the case of V. Mekala (supra) is distinguishable, where a school going girl, aged about 16 years had suffered",,
70% disability, consequent to which she was unable to walk without crutches.Â",,
I have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. Let us now consider the claim in relation to each of the appeals.,,
First Appeal No. 87/2018,,
The claimant, Mrs. Ana Mendes was aged about 53 years, at the time of the accident. She is serving as a Senior Special Assistant in the State",,
Bank of India. She has suffered injury to the left humerus (shoulder). The claimant was initially treated in Manipal Hospital and thereafter, in the",,
Healthway Hospital. The total period for which the appellant was unable to attend her duties is from 04.09.2016 to 29.01.2017. Admittedly, the",,
appellant has rejoined her service, and it is neither claimed nor there is any evidence, that she has suffered any loss of promotional prospects or has",,
been asked to work on a position, which is lower than the post on which she was working at the time of the accident. Even insofar as the period for",,
which the appellant was unable to attend the official duty, it is not the case made out that the said period was treated as leave without pay. The",,
appellant was paid full salary for the said period. The contention, however, is that the appellant has lost her leave,which she could have encashed at",,
the time of her superannuation.Â,,
1.,1. Salary for 144 days,"3,91,385
2.,"2. Towards pain and suffering and
loss of amenities","25,000
3.,"3. Expenses on medical treatment
4.","2,55,381
,"5. Travelling expenses (taxi
charges)
Towards attendant charges
7.","5,000
10,000
,8. Total Compensation,"6,86,766
Expenses on medical treatment,"3,64,843",
Travelling expenses (taxi charges),"5,000",
Towards attendant charges,"20,000",
Pain and Suffering,"50,000",
Preventive treatment,"25,000",
Injury could lead to epilepsy,"1,00,000",
Loss of amenities/marriage prospects,"1,50,000",
Total Compensation,"7,14,843",