AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure, J.—Though the matter is posted in the list of admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of by this judgment.
The insurer has challenged the quantum of compensation granted to the 1st respondent for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.
The facts reveal that on 26.03.2013, at about 3.30 p.m., while the 1st respondent was travelling in a auto rickshaw bearing registration No. MH-4/AE-6349, on national highway No. 9, near Naldur, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. AP-16/TW-3393 and thereby the 1st respondent suffered grievous injuries. He was treated in the hospital and he suffered the disability therefore, he made a claim for compensation, on the ground that he was working as a supplier, in a hotel and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. His claim petition was clubbed with other cases and common evidence was permitted.
The tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record, has granted a sum of Rs. 3,32,400/- as compensation on different heads, with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the insurer.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arise for consideration is:
"Whether the compensation awarded is on the higher side, if so, what is the reasonable amount payable to the 1st respondent?"
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the disability assessed by the tribunal is on the higher side and compensation on each of the heads is erroneous. Hence, she submits to modify the judgment and award. On the other hand, the learned counsel for 1st respondent supports the impugned judgment and award.
It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is a minor and he was 16 years old, at the time of the accident. As per his evidence, he was working as a supplier in a hotel. As could be seen from the injury certificate, he has suffered the fracture of lower third shaft of right tibia. He has produced the disability certificate, as per Ex. P11. PW.3 is the doctor, who has issued the aforesaid disability certificate. It is relevant to note that there is no shortening of the leg and the doctor has not stated the disability to the particular limb i.e., the right leg. Though, the doctor has assessed the disability at 23% to the whole body, in the absence of satisfactory reasons and the said disability cannot be accepted. Generally, 1/3rd of the disability of the particular limb and permanent disability of the whole body even accepting at 23% as assessed by PW.3, the whole body disability would be 8%.
Admittedly, the 1st respondent is the minor and the tribunal has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Kumar Mylari Rep. by Minor Guardian Natural Father Ningappa Vs. Madu Machayya, . This judgment pertains to the amputation of leg and the disability is at 50%. The principles laid down are not applicable to the facts on hand, as there is no amputation. The whole body disability is taken at 8%, if the loss of -. income is taken into consideration, assessing his income at Rs. 5,000/- as accepted by the tribunal and adopting the multiplier as provided, under the head of loss of future earning would be at Rs. 86,400/-. But the Apex Court in a recent judgment has held and laid down the formula for awarding the compensation for minors, wherein the disability to the particular limb is taken at 10% in the case of minor, has granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings. As this principle laid down is applicable to the 1st respondent. I think it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings.
The tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering though the 1st respondent has suffered single fracture. It has referred to the aforesaid judgment of this Court wherein, for amputation a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been granted towards pain and suffering, when there is reunion of the fracture, the question of granting compensation on that principle does not arise. Any how it appears bit more and it may not be proper to interfere with the amount. The quantum of compensation towards loss of medical expenses is proper. When there is a reunion of fracture, the question of awarding compensation towards marriage prospects does not arise and the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is erroneous and illegal. No compensation has been awarded towards food, nourishment and attendant charges and no compensation has been awarded towards loss of amenities. It is necessary to grant reasonable sum on both these heads.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the 1st respondent is entitled to compensation as follows:
Thus, the 1st respondent is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. For these reasons, the point is answered in the affirmative.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award are modified. The 1st respondent is entitled to total compensation of 1,95,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment.
The amount in deposit be transferred to the tribunal.
The copy of this judgment shall be sent to the concerned judicial, wherever he is in service.