Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan vs Smt. Rudramma

Mrs. S. Sujatha, J. - The insurer is before this Court challenging the liability fastened on the insurer to satisfy the award, whereas the cross-objector is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

It transpires that the appellant/claimant approached the Tribunal seeking compensation for the accidental injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident on 20.06.2011 owing to the actionable negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-02/W-2109. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,19,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. fastening the liability on the insurer to satisfy the award.

Learned counsel for the insurer assailing the impugned judgment and award would contend that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal without appreciating this defence raised by the insurer saddled the liability on the insurer contrary to the well-settled principles of law. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant challenging the liability, only on this ground contends that the endorsement issued by the RTO, Ananthpu 1, dated 01.12.2012 at Ex.P24 would not throw any light or confirm as regards the driver of the offending vehicle possessing the valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal grossly erred on placing reliance on the said Ex. P24 to negate the contentions of the insurer.

On the other hand, the claimants are before this Court by filing the cross-objection seeking enhancement of the compensation.

Learned counsel appearing for the cross-objector would contend that Ex.P24 prima facie establishes that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed the valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as such the finding given by the Tribunal on the issue of driver holding the valid and effective driving licence is justifiable. Further, the learned counsel submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is too meager compared to the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimants/appellants. It is submitted that the injured was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident. The injured sustained major fracture injuries, besides suffering with the permanent disability, her future earning capacity is totally reduced due to the impact of the accidental injuries. It is submitted that her left leg was amputated below knee, which is a schedule injury even as per schedule-II of the Workmen''s Compensation Act and the percentage of disability ought to have been assessed at 50% as per the said schedule, the Tribunal erred in assessing the permanent/partial disability to the extent of 40% to the whole body. Thus, the learned counsel seeks to re-assess the permanent disability to the whole body at 50%. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded towards loss of future earning is on the lower side, more particularly, while determining the monthly income of the injured at Rs.4,500/-.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusing the material on record, it is perspicuous from Ex.P24. certified copy of the extract of driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which indicates that the driver had the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, which occurred on 20.06.2011, to drive the offending vehicle. It is manifest from the said Ex.P24 that the driver was authorised to drive the Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) with effect from 03.02.2010. Thus, the contention of the appellant - Insurance Company that the driver had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident is not worthy of acceptance and the same is rejected.

As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is no doubt true that the injured has sustained major fracture injuries, besides her left leg below knee being amputated, the disability assessed by the Doctor as per the disability certificate and the evidence at 40% cannot be brushed aside only to bring the disability under schedule-II of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered as assessed by the Doctor, who is none other than the claimant''s witness has to prevail and no fault can be found in the assessment made by the Tribunal at 40% to the whole body.

However, the income determined by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- per month is grossly inadequate compared to the normal mode of determination made by this Court in the identical cases, wherein it is accepted at Rs.6,000/- per month, as such applying the same, the monthly income of the injured can be re-determined at Rs.6,000/-, applying the multiplier of 15 considering the age of the injured at 36 years, the loss of future earning would work out to Rs. 4,32,000/-. It is obvious that the young woman aged about 36 years has lost her left leg and she has to lead her future life with all turmoil, facing lots of tribulation, inconvenience and discomforts, besides facing social stigma of labelling her as handicapped person/physically challenged person. It is true that the appellant has to forgo many of the amenities of life, which otherwise she would have enjoyed it. It is also clear that she is crippled for life being dependent on the artificial limbs or crutches to attend to her normal and routine work and her entire life style is changed. Thus, in the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant-injured is entitled to a just, fair and reasonable compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Similarly the appellant is entitled to future medical expenses of Rs.30,000/- in view of the artificial limb on which she has to depend, which necessarily requires periodical change. The compensation awarded towards nursing, extra nourishment charges and attendant charges is also on the lower side, considering the hospitalization period and the follow-up treatment period, this Court is of the considered opinion that Rs. 10,000/- would be the just compensation under this head.

In view of the re-determination of the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- by this Court, the loss of earning during treatment period and rest period would work out to Rs. 18,000/-

Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:

Heads

Amount (In Rupees)

Towards pain and suffering

Rs. 50,000/-

Towards medical expenses

Rs. 25,000/-

Towards attendant charges, nursing, nourishment & incidental charges

Rs. 10,000/-

Towards treatment loss of period earning during

Rs. 18,000/-

Towards loss of future earning

Rs. 4,32,000/-

Towards loss of amenities

Rs. 50,000/-

Towards future medical expense

Rs. 30,000/-

TOTAL

Rs. 6,15,000/-

Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs. 6,15,000/- as against Rs. 4,19,000/-. The cross-objector shall be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 6,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated above.

The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement.