AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying for enhancement of the award amount given in the judgment dated 30.
04.2009, passed by the MACT, Sonitpur at Tezpur, in MAC Case No. 193 of 2005.
Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
On 20.08.2004 while the appellant/claimant came out from the vehicle being Megha Night Super Bus bearing Registration No. AS-12-3611 on
which he was travelling to Shillong from Guwahati, suddenly, the bus started moving and hit him causing serious injuries to his body. He was
immediately taken to the Down Town Hospital, Guwahati, where he was found to have suffered from injuries on his left kidney and spleen besides
facture of ribs. He was treated in the said hospital for 18 days and in the course of his treatment both his left kidney and spleen were removed. The
appellant, therefore, filed a claim case before the MACT, Sonitpur at Tezpur claiming adequate compensation. After the evidence were adduced and
the parties were heard, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,76,278/- under the following heads;
(A) Pecuniary loss:
(i) Expenses incurred for treatment : Rs. 2,13,528/-
(ii) Loss of income for three months : Rs. 12,750/-
(Rs. 4,250x3)
(B) Non-Pecuniary loss :
(i) For sustaining permanent disability : Rs. 50,000/-
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs. 50,000/-(iii) Loss of expectation of life : Rs. 50,000/-(iv) Discomfort or inconvenience : Rs. 50,000/-hardship,
disappointment, frustration in life
(v) Pain, suffering and mental shock : Rs. 50,000/-
______________________________________
Total Rs. 4,76,278/-
After having given the above stated award, the learned Tribunal directed the respondent i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd., to pay the award
amount with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation of the same along with Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
Not being satisfied with the award the claimant has filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of the same.
After having submitted at some length their respective cases both the learned counsels has come to an agreement in settling the award with
enhancement as follows; That the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that he is not pressing for enhancement of the award given at (i) of
“Pecuniary loss†under heading (A) and at (i), (iv) & (v) under the heading (B) “Non-pecuniary lossâ€.
I have gone through the judgment and award and I have also considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the
evidence given before the learned MACT, Sonitpur. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant has permanently loss his left kidney and spleen
besides having suffered the injuries which has already been mentioned above. Considering these facts, it is most likely that he would never enjoy the
kind of fitness and ability he use to enjoy before the accident. The organs he had permanently lost are vital for physical fitness and well being. Though,
the Doctor who examined the appellant/claimant has not given the percentage of disability that he had lost forever. I am of the view that the earning
capacity he must lost will certainly not be less than 30% if not more. For a person who has suffered permanent loss of kidney and spleen besides
having suffered such injuries to be compensated only for the lost of income for three months is certainly not at all a just compensation. Because, his
earning capacity has been reduced not only for the three months but for all his life. He is never going to be the same after the loss of such vital
organs. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the other High Courts in the following cases, I am of the view that
the award given is too meager, and not proportionate to the loss the appellant/claimant has suffered;
(i) R.D. Hattangadi -Vrs- Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551.
(ii) Arvind Singh â€"Vrs- Kajodmal & Ors., reported in II(2006) ACC 52 of Rajasthan High Court,
(iii) Shailja Timoti & Anrs. â€"Vrs- Sabhan Khan & Ors., reported in 2008 ACJ 2221 of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
(iv) V.V. Sreekanth â€"Vrs- T.A Azgar Pasha & Ors., passed in MFA No. 465/2011, judgment dated 13.12.2013 of Karnataka High Court (DB)
(v) Nizamudddin â€"Vrs- K.K. Asokan & Ors., passed in
MACA No. 1258/2004, judgment dated 14.06.2010 of Kerala High Court.
Therefore, after considering the submission of both the learned counsels, what has been stated above and in the light of the judgments in the cases
cited above I have come to the conclusion that the loss of income suffered by the appellant/claimant should have been fixed at a sum of Rs. 2,44,000/-
at least, by taking the loss of ability to earn as 30%. Regarding the loss of amenities of life and expectation of life needless to say but for a person who
has suffered permanent loss of such vital organs his ability to earn as stated above would have been reduced by at least not less than 30%, therefore,
his ability to meet his needs to the level he use to enjoy would be largely affected. Further, as stated expectation of life due to loss of those vital organs
would definitely be reduced to great extent because of the risk and care involve in the maintenance of health and prevention of diseases which are
prone to attack specially when one is without such organs. Therefore, compensation or the award given in these two columns i.e. Rs. 50,000/- each
are definitely too meager and too little. Because the appellant would continue to need a lot of money not only for treatment but for taking care to
prevent infection or diseases etc. all his life. Guided by the judgment submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and the facts as stated above, I
am of the considered view that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each given under these two heads should be enhanced by at least Rs. 50,000/- each.
Accordingly, the award given under the two heads are enhanced by Rs. 50,000/- each.
In view of what has been stated above, the respondent i.e. Insurance Company is directed to pay the award amount given here below within a
period of 2(two) months from today;
(A) Pecuniary loss:
(iii) Expenses incurred for treatment : Rs. 2,13,528/-
(iv) Loss of income for three months : Rs. 2,44,000/-(Rs. 12,750 replaced)
(B) Non-Pecuniary loss :
(i) For sustaining permanent disability : Rs. 50,000/-
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 50,000
(iii) Loss of expectation of life : Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 50,000
(iv) Discomfort or inconvenience : Rs. 50,000
hardship, disappointment, frustration in life
(v) Pain, suffering and mental shock : Rs.50,000
__________________________________________
Total =Rs. 8,07,528/-
The amount added shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. as decided as decided by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
final realisation of the whole amount.
With this, the appeal is disposed of.