AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Subbiah, J.—Being dissatisfied with the award (21.11.2007) passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small
Causes), Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2002, Claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Brief facts are as follows:
According to the appellant, on 12.03.2001, while he was travelling in a Van bearing registration No. TN-09-S-1950, owned by 1st respondent
and insured with 2nd respondent, from Trichy to Chennai from South to North, the said Van was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner and it dashed against the front portion of the Government Bus bearing registration No. TN-45-N-1344, which was coming from the
opposite direction and thus, caused the accident. In which, appellant had sustained multiple fracture injuries and severe cervical spine injury. On
account of accident, appellant was suffering paralytic attack and he took treatment in six hospitals, namely, Government Hospital, Perambalur,
Kaveri Medical Centre, Trichy, Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Chennai, Malar Hospital, Trichy, C.M.C., Vellore and Sea Horse Hospital,
Trichy. Due to the injuries sustained by him, now he has totally become immobilized and he took treatment from 12.03.2001 to 03.12.2003.
Appellant had lost his sense below the neck. Hence, he made a claim for Rs. 65,50,000/- as compensation against the owner as well as the insurer
of the van.
First respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Resisting the case, 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the averments made in the
petition.
In order to prove the claim, appellant examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.P-1
to P-19. On the side of insurance company, neither witness was examined nor document was marked. The Tribunal, after finding that the accident
was caused due to negligence act of the driver of Van, by order dated 21.11.2007, quantified the compensation and passed an award for Rs.
22,57,520/- and directed the insurance company to pay the same with interest. Feeling aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded, the
present appeal is filed by claimant.
Learned counsel for appellant contended that considering the nature of injuries and the nature of disability suffered by the victim, the total
amount of Rs. 22.57,520/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be an adequate compensation. Thus, he prayed for enhancement of
compensation by way of re-assessment.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent insurance company made his submission, supporting the Award passed by the
Tribunal.
Keeping the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, we have gone through the materials available on record and we find that in
order to speak about the injuries sustained by the victim, one Dr.Vedamoorthy was examined as P.W.3, through whom, disability certificates were
marked as Exs.P-12 and P-19. P.W.3 had stated in his evidence that on account of the accident, appellant had sustained fracture and dislocation
in the spinal cord and consequently, spinal cord in the neck region injured and he had lost sense below the neck and is suffering from complete
paralysis below the neck. In the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-19, it has been stated as follows:
He sustained fracture dislocation of 4th Cervical Vertebra with complete spinal cord compression of cervical area, which resulted in complete
Quadriplegia of all the four limbs.
The doctor had assessed disability as 90%. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,89,606/- towards permanent disability and the amounts
awarded under other heads are as follows:
Rs.
Loss of earning capacity 4,89,600.00
Pain and suffering 50,000.00
Medical expenses 13,67,920.00
Loss of amenities and loss of marriage prosperity2,00,000.00
Loss of future career 50,000.00
Future medical expenses 1,00,000.00
Total 22,57,520.00
We find, out of compensation, that major amount was awarded towards medical expenses. As contended by appellant, the sum of Rs.
4,89,600/- awarded under the head of permanent disability cannot be said to be an adequate compensation considering the nature of disability
suffered by the victim. Therefore, we are of the view that appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation since he has to lead his rest of his
life only in a vegetation state.
By a perusal of Award, it is seen that Rs. 4,500/- has been taken as monthly income and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal
expenses of the deceased, Tribunal has arrived at Rs. 3,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 17, has awarded Rs,4,89,600/- as loss of earning
capacity. On a perusal of evidence of P.W.3, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to fix disability at 100% since appellant has to carry on his
rest of life only through the help of others and he cannot do any work for his livelihood for the rest of his life. Similarly, we are of the opinion that
this is not a fit case, where deduction of 1/3rd amount has to be made towards personal expenses since appellant has become totally immobilized
.Therefore, by fixing disability at 100% and by setting aside the deduction of 1/3rd amount, the compensation could be arrived at.
As fixed by the Tribunal, Rs. 4,500/- is fixed as monthly income of appellant. So, the annual loss of income works out to Rs. 54,000/-. If we
apply multiplier of 17, the total loss of income comes to Rs. 9,18,000/- (Rs,4500/- x 12 x 17 x 100/100) which is hereby awarded as just and
proper compensation by fixing disability at 100%.
Further, the evidence on record would show that appellant has been taking treatment as on date. In fact, appellant has produced medical bills
subsequent to the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000/- and odd and he prayed that the said amount has to be granted.
For which, learned counsel appearing for insurance company has vehemently opposed for granting any amount towards future medical expenses.
However, we are of the opinion that the evidence on record would show that the appellant has to carry on his medical treatment throughout his life.
Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that some reasonable amount could be awarded as just and proper compensation under the head
''future medical expenses''.
The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/ towards Future Medical Expenses. Taking into consideration the status of the appellant, the same is
hereby enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/-. The sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards Future Career, in our opinion, is not sustainable
and as such, the same is set aside. Further we find that the victim had undergone treatment for more than three years. Considering the long duration
of treatment undergone by the victim, we are of the opinion that Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head ''pain and suffering'' needs
proper enhancement. Hence, the same is hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Considering the fact that 1st respondent/claimant needs help of an
attender to carry on his normal avocation throughout his life, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded under the head of ''future attender charges''.
Except this modification, the amounts awarded under other heads are confirmed. Consequently, the sum of Rs. 22,57,520/- awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 30,85,920/- and the break up details are hereunder:
Rs.
Loss of earning capacity 9,18,000.00
Pain and suffering 1,00,000.00
Medical expenses 13,67,920.00
Loss of marriage prospects & loss of amenities 2,00,000.00
Future medical expenses 4,00,000.00
Future attender charges 1,00,000.00
30,85,920.00
We are of the opinion that appellant is entitled for interest for the said amount except Rs. 5,00,.000/- awarded under the heads future medical
expenses (Rs.4,00,000/-) and future attender charges (Rs.1,00,000/-).
In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. however, there is no order as to costs. Insurance company, 2nd respondent, is directed to
deposit the modified award amount of Rs. 30,85,920/- with interest at 7.5% on Rs. 25,85,920/- from the date of deposit before the Tribunal,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire
amount.