Samita vs Sunanda

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Sri. Sanjay M. Joshi is directed to take notice for respondent No. 2 and directed to file Vakalat in the course of the day.

The appeal coming on for admission is considered for final disposal. It is apparent from the judgment and award of the Tribunal which is challenged in this appeal that there is no consideration of the facts of the case in awarding compensation and the appeal is preferred by one of the claimants who is a beneficiary of the common judgment and the claim petition is numbered as MVC 2153/2009 before the Tribunal.

The case of the appellant is that on 09.07.2009 her husband and son were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. MH-24/A-2299 from Ajmera to Ausa. At about 9.15 p.m. when they were near a bridge, a truck bearing registration No. KA-28/A-7799 coming from the opposite direction had dashed against the jeep. The appellant is said to have sustained injuries. Her husband and son who were severely injured are said to died at the hospital where they were admitted for treatment. In this background the appellant had claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal on consideration of the case of the appellant has awarded compensation on the basis that the appellant having suffered injuries on her right arm and grievous injuries to her head, face and all over the body and on the basis that she was employed as a tailor and earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month and has awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses including nourishment and an attendant's expenses apart from conveyance charges and has restricted the amount to Rs. 50,000/- in all. On the face of it, the award of compensation is apparently inadequate and does not satisfy the interest of justice.

After having heard the learned counsel for the respondent at length, it is evident that the appellant has suffered grievous injuries and was certainly entitled to a larger amount of compensation. The medical practitioner has assessed the disability to the right upper limb at 35% to 40% and therefore there ought to have been a proper assessment of the compensation. The appellant shall be entitled to compensation on the basis of her notional income, which in the absence of any material evidence that she was earning Rs. 10,000/-. Since the disability was assessed to the right upper limb, it would have to be prudently taken at 1/3rd of the same and the disability is taken at 10% and the notional income of Rs. 4,500/- is adopted, as the appellant was capable earning much more, as on the date of the accident and the multiplier 16 is adopted since the appellant was aged about 33 years and on that basis the loss of earning capacity can safely be arrived at Rs. 86,400/- and the appellant is held entitled to the same.

Further, she had suffered serious injuries and the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering which may be on the lower side however since the award of compensation under other heads is considered the same, is retained. The Tribunal has negated the claim towards medical expenses, on the footing that the appellant has not produced prescriptions and that bills produced by her are from different places. This reasoning is unjust. Hence, the bills amounting to Rs. 48,000/- are accepted and she ought to be granted the same towards medical expenses. Loss of amenities suffered by the appellant is not taken into account by the Tribunal, Rs. 15,000/- is a nominal amount under this head. The appellant is also entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards future medical expenses since the treatment may not be prolonged. She must also be compensated towards loss of income during the laid up period in a sum of Rs. 9,000/-. Thus, the appellant-claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,03,400/-.

After deducting the sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant is entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 1,53,400/- which shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The appeal is allowed and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified in terms as above.

Respondent No. 2 shall pay the additional compensation along with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.