AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—This is claimant''s appeal, being not satisfied with the compensation awarded to her by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal''), Bangalore in MVC No.5187/2001 dated 25-8-2006.
The admitted facts are as under:
In an road traffic accident that occurred on 12-12-1999 at about. 4.30 p.m. while the claimant was travelling in a Car bearing registration No. KA-04/P-2550 on Mysore-Bangalore Road, near Siddaiahna Koppalu of Mandya District, a bus bearing registration No. KA-11/2783 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the car in which the claimant was travelling, due to which, she suffered grievous injuries. She was immediately shifted to Mandya Government Hospital and then to Manipal Hospital at Bangalore. She was an inpatient from 12-12-1999 to 24-6-2000 at Manipal Hospital and thereafter for better treatment, she was shifted to Breach Candy Hospital at Mumbai and she was inpatient there from 24-6-1999 to 19-7-2000. From Breach Candy Hospital, she was shifted to Super Speciality Hospital at Boston, USA and she has underwent treatment in the said Hospital till August 2002. Even after taking treatment in various hospitals, not only in Bangalore, but also in Bombay and USA, she has become completely disabled and her disability has been assessed by an Orthopedic Surgeon as 27% to the whole body and 75% by the neuro surgeon. Therefore, she has become completely disabled. The claimant''s husband was working as a Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and that the claimant is said to have spent more than Rs. 10.00 to 15.00 lakhs rupees towards medication. Most of the bills are settled by the Government of India on account of her husband being a Central Government employee.
The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs. 5,00,000/- towards medical expenditure after excluding the amount reimbursed by the Government of India; Rs. 50,000/- towards incidental expenses; Rs. 97,200- towards permanent disability; Rs. 15,000/- towards future loss of amenities in life; Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs. 7,72,200/- has been awarded as compensation. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The main contention of the Appellant before us is that the compensation awarded to her on all heads requires to be enhanced. According to her, awarding of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings is on the lower side and all the medical bills were not considered by the Tribunal. Though her daughter was on leave for more than 18 months to take care of her, loss of income of her daughter has not been considered. The Air tickets purchased by her for the travel of her husband and her brother who is a Doctor to accompany her for medical treatment to USA and awarding of future loss of income is on the lower side, so also the amenities of life. Therefore, the present appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation.
The accident is of the year 1999. The Appellant has sustained several fractures. According to us, awarding of Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation under the head pain and sufferings does not call for interference by this Court. The Government of India has already reimbursed Rs. 7,00,000/- towards her medical expenses, in addition to that, the amount spent by her towards her treatment at USA including the Air Tickets of the claimant and her daughter has been reimbursed. The Tribunal considering the medical bills produced by the claimant awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards medical expenditure. But, on recalculation, it is admitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company that the Appellant is entitled to further sum of Rs. 81,000/- based on the medical bills produced by her, in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the amount reimbursed by the Government of India. Therefore, we are of the view that the Appellant is entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs. 81,000/- towards medical expenses.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-towards incidental charges which is inclusive of attendant and nourishment charges. We are of the opinion that awarding of Rs. 50,000/- under this head is on the lower side, because, the claimant was admitted to the Manipal Hospital at Bangalore, thereafter shifted to Breach Candy Hospital at Bombay and then to Boston at USA. When she was under the treatment for more than 2 years, we are of the opinion that the she has spent huge amount towards medical expenditure in different places other than her own place. She was also required to spend lot of money for conveyance, attendant charges and boarding and lodging of her attendants. Therefore, we are inclined to award another sum of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to the amount what has been already awarded by the Tribunal under this head. It has come in her evidence that the Government of India has reimbursed the Air Tickets of her daughter and herself and she is claiming the Air Tickets of her husband and her brother who was a Doctor and had accompanied her to Boston at USA. According to us, it is not possible for this Court to accept, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant regarding awarding compensation towards the air tickets of her husband and her brother. If the patient was required to go abroad, she was in need of an attendant. Her daughter is an educated lady and she was working in Taj Group of Hotels in Bombay, hence there was no difficulty for her daughter to manage the claimant while taking her to USA for treatment. In the circumstances, we cannot consider the amount spent by the claimant towards air tickets of her husband and her brother.
It is contended by the claimant that her daughter was looking after her while she was in the hospital and she could not attend to her work. She has relied upon Ex.P. 18, which is a letter issued by the Employer of her daughter to show that her daughter was out of employment for 18 months. We are of the opinion that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the presence of her daughter was required while she was in the hospital. Therefore, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of income of her daughter during the period of treatment of the Appellant. Only a sum of Rs. 15,000/-has been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities in life, which according to us is on the lower side. Considering the status of the claimant in the Society, the year of accident and that the claimant has become a disabled person, we are inclined to award a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- under the aforesaid head.
Considering the facts that the claimant is a house wife, the Tribunal has assessed her income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and considering her disability at 27%, awarded a sum of Rs. 97,200/ towards future loss of income which is on the lower side. We are of the opinion that the assessment of her income by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. is on the higher side as the accident is of the year 1999, the income of a house wife can be assessed at Rs,80/- per day and Rs. 2,400/- p.m. and Rs. 28,800/- p.a. As the claimant is completely a disabled lady on account of her disability, we are considering the disability at 100%. Therefore after giving deductions to Rs. 97,200/-, the claimant is entitled to further sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- towards future loss of income. Thus, in all the Appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,21,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment as enhanced compensation in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The Appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,21,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon is ordered to be deposited in the name of the Appellant for a period of 5 years and she is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest. Rest of the amount be released to the claimant.