AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant/original claimant aggrieved and dissatisfied by assessment of compensation vide judgment and award dated 15.05.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur in MACP No.445/1999 filed this Appeal for enhancement.
On 01.02.1999 claimant was proceeding in his Maruti Car bearing Registration No.MH-24-955. He was sitting on rear seat. At that time Tempo Trax bearing Registration No.MH-24-C-284 came from opposite direction and gave forceful dash to Car. The claimant suffered multiple injuries in accident. Inspite of medical treatment at various hospitals, he sustained permanent disablement. According to claimant, he is medical practitioner and skin specialist. He was earning Rs.16,000/- per month at the time of accident. As a result of permanent disablement, he has suffered loss of earning. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-from owner, driver and insurer of offending Tempo Trax.
The claim was contested by respondents. However, on evaluation of evidence, Tribunal passed Award of Rs.1,38,750/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum directing respondents to jointly and severely pay the same to claimant.
Mr. Maske, learned Advocate appearing for appellant vehemently submits that claimant had suffered multiple fractures in accident. He had fracture to left scapula, left wrist joint and dislocation of left hip, apart from lacerated wound on forearm, right elbow, left ankle and toe. He suffered permanent partial disablement. The income of claimant is proved @ Rs.16,000/- per month. He suffered 25% permanent disablement as certified by registered medical practitioner. Therefore, compensation awarded by Tribunal is inadequate and deserves appropriate enhancement. In support of his contentions, he relies upon observation of Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another1.
Per contra, Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.3/Insurance Company submits that claimant continued his practice as skin specialist. There is nothing on record that he suffered loss of future earning owing to injuries or permanent disablement. The claimant has not examined Author of disability certificate. He did not file returns of his income for post accident period. The Tribunal has rightly observed that permanent disability suffered by claimant has nothing to do with his medical practice. Eventually, compensation is rightly assessed.
Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that present Appeal raises limited issue as to assessment of just compensation. Undisputedly claimant suffered multiple fractures in accident and his disability is assessed to 25%. The Tribunal granted compensation on following heads:
| Sr. No. | Heads | Amount (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Loss of income during treatment period for three months (Rs.16,000 X 3) | Rs.48,000/- |
| 2 | Compensation towards injuries | Rs.40,000/- |
| 3 | Pain and suffering | Rs.15,000/- |
| 4 | Permanent partial disablement | Rs.30,000/- |
| 5 | Medical expenses | Rs.5750/- |
| TOTAL | Rs.1,38,750/- | |
In case of Raj Kumar (supra), Supreme Court observed in paragraph no.12 as under:
“12.Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i)whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii)if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii)if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.”
In light of aforesaid guidelines, if evidence of claimant is appreciated, it can be observed that claimant is medical practitioner. In paragraph no.3 of claim petition he stated that he was out of work for about four months during medical treatment. As such, he suffered monthly loss of earning @ Rs.16,000/- and as such, claimed loss for four months. He states that prior to accident, he used to visit different places being skin specialist. However, after accident he stopped visiting different places. He finds difficulty in sitting on ground and also difficulty in day to day activities. He quantified his loss of earning @ Rs.60,000/- per year due to aforesaid disability. The aforesaid evidence clearly depicts that claimant continued his practice even after accident may be with certain difficulties. Therefore, this is not case where compensation needs to be worked out by applying multiplier method assuming loss of future earning owing to permanent disablement. However, certainly compensation requires re-assessment for various non-pecuniary heads. In case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others2, Supreme Court observed as under:
“9.Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant:
(i)medical attendance;
(ii)loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii)other material loss.
So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include
(i)damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future;
(ii)damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii)damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened;
(iv)inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”
In light of aforesaid exposition of law, while assessing compensation in injury cases, Court has to consider pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary losses suffered by victim under various heads. In present case, although Tribunal has granted compensation towards pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary losses, this Court finds that paltry sum is awarded towards non-pecuniary loss.
The evidence on record shows that claimant was hospitalized for 17 days and undergone surgery. Thereafter, he continued his treatment at his residence under Physiotherapist for about two and half months. Inspite of aforesaid medical treatment, he suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 25%. It is well settled that permanent disablement is independent head for grant of compensation. Looking to nature of injury suffered by claimant, appropriate compensation needs to be granted towards pain and suffering, discomfort in life, loss of confidence, transportation, attendant charges, nutritious diet and loss of life expectancy. In this backdrop, this Court finds that compensation towards non-pecuniary heads needs to be awarded to claimant as under:
| Sr. No. | Heads | Entitlement |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Loss of Earning for four months during Hospitalization (17 days) and further treatment | Rs.64,000/- |
| 2. | Medical Expenses | Rs.5750/- |
| 3. | Special Diet | Rs.5000/- |
| 4. | Attendant Charges | Rs.10,000/- |
| 5. | Transportation Charges | Rs.10,000/- |
| 6. | Permanent Disability | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| 7. | Pain and Sufferings | Rs.25,000/- |
| 8. | Discomfort in life | Rs.25,000/- |
| 9. | Loss of confidence | Rs.25,000/- |
| 10. | Loss of life expectancy | Rs.25,000/- |
| Total | Rs.2,94,750/- |
In view of aforesaid calculations, Award passed by Tribunal needs to be modified. Hence, following order:
ORDER
a. The First Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate cost.
b. The respondents shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.2,94,750/- (Rs.Two Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) to the appellant (inclusive of amount of ‘NFL’) together with the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.
c. On deposit of the compensation amount, it shall be disbursed to appellant.
d. The compensation already paid/released in terms of original award of the Tribunal be appropriated.
e. Award be drawn up accordingly on payment of deficit court fees.