AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal by claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 25.3.2009 passed in Claim Case No.321/2009.
Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of appeal are in narrow compass; appellant-claimant Shailendra, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India, while driving a car met an accident with the offending vehicle MP-06-E-5509 as a result sufferred head injury/Right Frontal Contusion/Tripod Fracture of Right Zygoma/# Right Squamous Temporal Bone/# Roof of Right Orbit/# Right Frontal Bone/# Shaft of Femur (right)/# Lower End of Radius of left side. Thereafter, he was hospitalized for the period 19.1.2005 to 28.2.2005 at CHL Applo Hospital and from 28.2.2005 to 21.3.2005 at Robert Nursing Home, total 67 days and also has undergone constant treatment thereafter for a period of 23 months. Dr.Ashish Mehrotra, Member, Medical Board has also assessed the disability of the appellant-claimant at 35% and was examined as PW-5 and certificate of disability is Ex.P/7. The Tribunal while allowing the claim has granted compensation under following heads :-
Medical bills
Rs.1,72,384/-
Pain & suffering
Rs. 10,000/-
Special diet
Rs. 5,000/-
Attendant
Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of estate
Rs. 1,000/-
Loss of income (86,880 + 72,020)
Rs.1,58,900/-
Permanent disability
Rs. 20,000/-
Total
Rs.3,72,284/-
Learned counsel for the appellant has approached this Court for enhancement of compensation inter alia contending that though, salary of the claimant is not reduced after resumption of duties, but the impact of injuries on the quality of life, future prospects and career progression is incredible looking to the nature of duties performed by the claimant. He is the Development Officer and required to perform duties of supervision over Insurance Agents. He is also expected to solicit insurance business and achieve the given target of business. Due to injuries sufferred by him his power of speech has weaken, he cannot speak in a flow and has sufferred stammering. Besides, he suffers headache and constant pain, therefore, not able to concentrate in his work to the best of his ability. He also cannot undertakes long journeys required in the course of his employment for augmentation of LIC business. As such the Tribunal in all fairness ought to have granted compensation looking to the degree of disability ascertained by the Medical Board. That has not been done and the meager amount of Rs.20,000/- has been paid for the injuries sufferred by him and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering.
Per contra, Shri Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, while opposing the appeal and pressing for the cross-objection, contends that there is no loss of income and earning capacity as claimant has also been paid increments with the passage of time, therefore, no separate compensation can be awarded under the head of loss of income or loss of earning capacity. He relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 ACJ 1 to bolster his submissions. Learned counsel further submits that in the disability certificate Ex.P/7 Doctor has ascertained disability in right leg and left hand. Hence, no credence can be given for the alleged complaint of loss of future progression of career. Besides, as the bones are united and there is no deformity. That apart, the claimant is also responsible for the head on collision of the accident, therefore, was liable for Contributory Negligence. However, the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the contention in that behalf. With the aforesaid submissions learned counsel prays for dismissal of appeal and allowing the cross-objection.
Heard.
It is gainsaid that the scheme underlined Motor Vehicles Act in the context of payment of compensation ensures that the award of compensation must be just and proper i.e. the compensation should be sufficient to restore the claimant to the position prior to the occurrence of accident. The object of awarding damages in the form of compensation is to make good the loss sufferred by the claimant as a result of wrong done to him as far as money can do, so in a just, reasonable and equitable manner. The assessment of loss sufferred by the claimant must be assessed and adjudge with objectively ensuring substantive justice, instead of irrational, speculative or fanciful. No doubt, an element of guess work is required to be applied while determining the amount of compensation looking to the nature and degree of disability and consequences flowing therefrom having effect on quality of life and personality of the claimant with career progression. Therefore, it would be said that the compensation is paid not only for the injuries sufferred, but also for the loss he sufferred in his future life, as a result of such injuries. Therefore, he is to be compensated for his inability to enjoy those normal amenities, which he would have enjoyed and earned with career progression in his life but for injuries.
In the instant case the factum of accident is not disputed. Sufferance of injuries by claimant are also not disputed. Area of dispute revolves around the question whether the claimant is entitled for compensation due to injuries and disability sufferred by him or not, more so if his income is not reduced.
At this stage it is appropriate to observe that for want of evidence led by respondent/Insurance Company on the issue of Contributory Negligence, the Tribunal is found to have not committed illegality while holding the Insurance Company liable for full compensation. Hence, cross-objection in that behalf is rejected.
Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2014 SCJ 692, has held claimant entitled for compensation under the head disability due to sufferance of injuries as assessed by the Doctor as well as for future prospects.
Per contra, Shri Jindal opposes the prayer relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, 2014 ACJ 653, with the contention that if there is no loss of income or earning capacity, no separate compensation can be awarded for the disability suffered by the claimant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the obtaining facts and circumstances it is undisputed that claimant has definitely sufferred pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of earning and loss of career progression and quality of life, therefore, though this Court does not intend to deal with the claim headwise for want of material in that behalf, but to strike a balance between the parties and regard being had to the principles underlined to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court a lumpsum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.Three lacs only) deserves to be enhanced.
As such, the total amount awarded to the claimants is from Rs.3,72,284/- to Rs.6,72,284/- - (i.e., the enhanced amount comes to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only), with interest at the rate as fixed by the tribunal in the award which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the claimant as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. The enhanced amount of compensation Rs.3,00,000/- shall also be payable to the claimant within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact.
Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of. No order as to costs.