P.R. Sheshagiri Rao vs Srimathi Yashodamma

K.L. Manjunath, J.—This is a claimant''s appeal. The appellant filed a claim petition in MVC No. 1349/2007 before the MACT, Bangalore, claiming compensation on account of the injury sustained by him and the permanent disability caused to him on account of the accident that occurred on 19-6-2002 at about 9.40 am, while travelling in KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 06/A.4488 between Pavgada to Bangalore.

According to the claimant he was a passenger in KSRTC bus bearing No. MEF 873. When the bus was near Urudugere another bus bearing No. KA 06/A 4488 owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus in which the claimant was a passenger. On account of the impact the right leg of the petitioner was caught in-between the two seats and crushed. He also sustained multiple injuries. The petitioner lost his consciousness for some time. He was shifted to NIMHANS hospital. He was treated at NIMHANS as outpatient for his head injury and later he was referred to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for better treatment. His right leg was amputated above the ankle. Thereafter he was shifted to Trinity Nursing Home on 20-6-2002 and he underwent two surgeries on 24-6-2002 and 8-7-2002. In all he was an inpatient for more than one month and took treatment as outpatient for 6 months.

The claimant after passing his M.Sc, in Agriculture Science and was working as Scientist in Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and was doing his research work and he was paid honorarium of Rs. 7,500/- per month. On account of the amputation of his right leg above the ankle he is totally disabled person and he is unable to do his work. On the date of the accident he was aged 37 years. 5 years after the accident the claim petition was lodged by him. The owner of the 1st respondent bus was placed exparte and the Insurance Company admitted its liability and issuance of policy and contended that the liability would be subject to the driver of the bus holding valid licence. It also denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the 1st respondent. According to the Insurance Company it is a composite negligence.

In order to prove their respective contentions on behalf of the claimant 3 witnesses were examined. Amongst them P.W.1 is the claimant. On behalf of the Insurance Company the officer of the Company was examined as R.W.1 and he relied upon Ex. R-1. Ex. R-1 is the investigation report.

The tribunal after considering the evidence held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent bus and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,27,396/- as compensation.

Being dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. O. Mahesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company. The main contention of the appellant before us is that the tribunal did not consider that the claimant had bright future in research an d agricultural operations and at the time of the accident he was working as Scientist in Indian Institute of Science. The Planning Commission of India also appointed him as a Member for the Screening Committee and he was also a consultant to various Multinational Companies in the area of Environmental Science. According to the appellant the intellectual capacity coupled with the physical stamina in the filed of agricultural science has not been considered by the tribunal. He has also written number of articles in National and International journals and he his also co-author of several books and he is also a co-author along with Padma Bushan Madhav D. Gadgil who is a well known personality in the filed of Economics and Agricultural Science. According to the claimant the tribunal has committed an error in considering his income at Rs. 7,500/- p.m. which he was getting as honorarium at the Indian Institute of Science as research Scholar and the future prospects of the claimant has not been considered by the tribunal. It is further contended that the award of compensation under other heads is required to be re-considered by appreciating the evidence let-in by the appellant.

Per contra, Mr. Mahesh, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contends that based on the annual income on the date of the accident the tribunal has awarded compensation and the same does not require any interference. In the circumstances he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties what is to be considered by us in this appeal is:

"Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal requires to be enhanced?"

Before adverting to the computation of compensation on the various heads we have to consider the background of the claimant in this appeal. It is an admitted fact that the appellant having acquired M.Sc, Masters Degree in Agricultural Science was working as Project Associate in Indian Institute of Science under Padma Bhushan awardee Sri Madhv D. Gadgil and he has co-authored various books with Sri Madhav D. Gadgil. Admittedly, Padma Bhushan awardee Sri Madhav D. Gadgil is an eminent Ecological Scientist and he was associated with him for a long period. He had also worked with reputed Scientist. He is also one of the co-authors along with him for a book published by Dr. Gadgil and his intention was to take up the "Land to Lab instead of "Lab to Land". He had also worked with reputed Scientist Dr. Sulochana Gadgil. He has also acquired experience in weather forecasting, agriculture ecology, bio diversity and environmental science and his articles are published in well known National and International journals and the copies of the same are produced by the claimant.

It is also not in dispute that the claimant was also doing Research on growing ground nut in Pavagada Taluk where the rainfall is very scanty and the documents produced by him evidences that he was doing research work for the better of Indian agriculture. Sri K.V. Dinesh is one of the witnesses examined by the claimant who is working as a Chairman of the Asian Development Bank. According to P.W.2 it called for application from suitable candidates for the environmentalists in 2006 with salary of Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum. The petitioner was eligible to secure such a job considering his background.

P.W.3. Dr. Sunilkumar has deposed before the Court to show that the disability caused to the claimant on account of the amputation of his leg above the ankle. According to him, the claimant is having 70% permanent disability for the right lower limb and 25% for the whole body. Considering the nature of the work to be undertaken by the claimant, that is, to do research in agricultural sciences, for right leg amputation above ankle we have to consider the functional disability than the actual disability assessed by P.W.3. If we consider the functional disability of the claimant we are of the view that 50% permanent disability has to be considered as functional disability since the claimant is wearing artificial limb. Inspite of wearing artificial limb it is difficult for a Scientist to go for field work. At the time of the accident he was aged 37 years. He had a bright future. We have to consider his future prospects also for computing the compensation.

In this background we are of the view that Rs. 7,500/- p.m. paid to the claimant by the Indian Institute of Science cannot be considered as notional income for a research scholar who had a bright future. On the date of the accident the minimum income of such research Scientist could not have been less than Rs. 20,000/- p.m. Accordingly, we assess his income at Rs. 20,000/- p.m. The notional income could not have been less than Rs. 20,000/- per month since he was aged 42 years on the date of the accident considering his future prospects 30% has to be added to the same. If that is so, the notional income has to be assessed at Rs. 26,000/- per month and considering the functional disability caused to him to an extent of 50%, the loss of income has to be assessed at Rs. 13,000/- per month and considering the age we have to apply the multiplier of 14. The future loss of income has to be assessed at Rs. 21,84,000/-.

In addition to that he was in-patient for more than a month and he was taking treatment. He took treatment as out-patient for more than 6 months. Considering the amputation of his right leg and further that he has undergone operations twice we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. The tribunal has awarded medical expenses to an extent of Rs. 1,66,396/- based on the medical bills produced by the appellant which we are inclined to confirm the same. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards attendant charges which according to us is on lower side. Accordingly under the head attendant charges and conveyance charges we are inclined to award Rs. 40,000/-. Since he has suffered disability for the rest of his life we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head loss of amenities and future prospects. Towards loss of income during the laid up period the tribunal has not awarded any compensation since he was under treatment for more than 6 months we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and for future medical expenses a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- Thus, in all the total compensation would be Rs. 30,10,396/-. The same is rounded off to Rs. 30,10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced and modified by holding that the claimant is entitled for Rs. 30,10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the awarded within 3 months from today.