National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rekha Kumari and Another

A.A. Halbe, J.—The appellant--National Insurance Company--has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao in Claim Petition No. 26 of 1985 6n the point of quantum. The Tribunal has been pleased to award the compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- with 12% interest thereon plus the costs of Rs. 3,000/ to the injured Rekha Kumari d/o Sukhbir Singh in the accident dated 8.9.1984 which occurred at 3 p.m. on Zuari Nagar Airport Highway Road about 50 mtrs. away from the airport junction. The facts in brief are that Rekha was travelling in an Ambassador car No. GDF-951 along the above road. She was occupying the back seat on the right side. There were other passengers in that car. The offending min bus No. GDZ-2607 came from behind and gave a dash to the Ambassador car, as a result of which the Ambassador car was pushed forward and the rear right door of the care was thrown open and Rekha was thrown out and her right leg got trapped in the wheels of the mini bus. She sustained serious injuries and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- under various heads. The owner of the bus did not contest the claim and it is the Insurance Company that put in appearance and contested the claim both on the point of negligence and also on the point of quantum. However, the Insurance Company did not raise any other defence. The learned Member of the Tribunal, on the assessment of ocular as well as the documentary evidence, found favour with the claim of the petitioner and awarded the above amount.

The Insurance Company preferred the appeal and it may be stated that the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company could not contest the question of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 - the owner of the offending bus. It was precisely because the driver of the vehicle did not step into the witness box. On the other hand, the claimant''s witness Raja Devi and another witness Amar Singh--who was driving the Ambassador Car No. GDF-951 have unequivocally deposed that the ambassador car was going along the above road. The offending bus came from the back and gave a serious dash, as a result of which the petitioner was thrown out and further that there was extensive damage to the ambassador car. The driver of the offending bus was prosecuted in a criminal case. Even the claimant Rekha Kumari testified to all these facts and the cross-examination of these witnesses did not at all indicate that the driver of the ambassador car was in the wrong. In view of the reliable evidence, the learned Member of Tribunal was fully justified in holding the respondents responsible for compensation to the claimant.

Now so far as the quantum is concerned, it can be easily gathered that the petitioner sustained extensive do gloving type of laceration extending along the medial aspect of thigh and anterior aspect of right leg. There was a deep laceration along the posterior lateral aspect of the right calf. Dr. Narendra Section Parulekar, attached to Salgaonkar Medical Research Centre at Chicalim had deposed that the petitioner was brought in very serious injured condition to the hospital. She needed resuscitation for being taken to operation theatre. She had the injuries which are described as above. She was hospitalised for a period of more than a month and during this, she had to undergo two major operations. Although the condition may be seen to be somewhat improved, according to Dr. Parulekar, the applicant will have disfiguring scar over the right leg including the knee. She will have functional impairment of right knee joint.

The father of the applicant has contended that even after discharge from hospital, the petitioner had to undergo three minor operations and that her left leg is practically rendered displaced.

The learned Member was pleased to award Rs. 9,000/- towards medical expenses. The same are based on documents on record. The learned advocate for the respondent-petitioner has contended that the amount should be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- because all the medical expenses are not accounted for. We see no reason to reject this prayer.

The learned Member was pleased to award Rs. 40,000/- under the heading pains and sufferings besides shock. Now looking to the serious nature of the injuries and also looking to the fact that the petitioner must have been subjected to acute agony, pains and discomfort, the amount of Rs. 40,000/- on no reckoning can be said to be excessive. Her life will be practically a one-legged life. She is a woman, who has not only to perform the household chores but has also to perform marital obligations. She has a long life to go and thus an additional amount of Rs. 40,000/- for loss of amenities would also be justifiable. However, the further amount of Rs. 35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is in respect of general compensation which, to our mind, is not supported by any evidence. It is not the pleading of the petitioner that she will have to undergo further treatment and we feel that this amount is not justifiable. The total amount, therefore, should be scaled down to Rs. 90,000/-. The other approach of the learned Tribunal in lumpsum deduction of 10% does not appear to be justifiable. Lumpsum deduction is permissible in case of multiplier theory used normally in the matters of deaths and other cases of permanent disability. Here the compensation is in respect of only loss of amenities, pains and sufferings and shock. Hence we see no justification in deducting the amount from lumpsum. In this view of the matter, the following order.

The appeal is partly allowed. The respondent-petitioner shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 90,000/- which shall carry the interest at 12% from the date of application till satisfaction. She is also awarded the costs of Rs. 3,000/-. The payments, if any made by the appellant or original respondent No. 1, shall be adjusted towards this claim and so the interest payable thereon. In these terms, the appeal is disposed of.