AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Praveen Kumar, J.—Challenging the Award dated 05.03.2007 passed by the I Additional District Judge-cum-I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, in O.P. No. 864 of 2005, the second respondent/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in O.P.
The facts in issue are as under:
The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that was occurred on 03.02.2005 at about 7.30 p.m. near Gopi Revu outskirts of Kolanka village. It is stated that on that day the petitioner along with his family members visited Matlapalem Mahalakshmi Goddess temple while returning to their house in a car bearing No. AP-5T-555 and when they reached Gopi Revu near High School, the first respondent who was the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the electric pole situated on the left side of the road. Due to that the petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Yanam and from there to Government Hospital, Kakinada. The petitioner underwent operations on three occasions and screws and plates were inserted. He was treated as an inpatient for about 1 1/2 month. It was further stated that the petitioner could not move from bed due to which he could not attend his job, as such he was removed from the post of Franchise centre Manager and T. Computer education at Ramachandrapuram. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R-1 and R-2 being the insurer of the Car, the petitioner filed the O.P. claiming compensation against both of them.
The First respondent, who is the driver-cum-owner remained ex parte. The second respondent/Insurance company filed written statement denying the allegations in the petition and contended that the crime vehicle was not insured with them and R-1 was not having valid licence and he was also not having valid documents of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, it is stated that the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
Basing on the above pleadings, the following issue has been framed for trial:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for R-1 driver-cum-owner and R-2 insurer for the rash, negligent and high speed driving of Car A.P. 5T-555 by R-1 on 03.02.2005 at 7.30 p.m. on the outskirts of Kakinada village causing him simple and grievous injuries?"
After analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court awarded the following emoluments:
Challenging the same, the Insurance company preferred the present appeal. Though the appeal has been preferred against the award, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company restricted his argument to the quantum of compensation. He submits that having awarded a sum of Rs. 86,000/- towards pain and sufferance, the Tribunal erred in awarding further sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards permanent disability. He submits that both these claims cannot go together.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no illegality in the said finding and same warrants no interference.
Since the manner in which the accident took place is not in dispute, the only question that arise for consideration is:
"Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 75,000/-. towards permanent disability after awarding Rs. 86,000/- towards pain and sufferance?"
Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to refer to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the disability. In his examination in chief, P.W. 1 narrates the injuries sustained by him. P.W. 2, who is a Professor in Orthopedic at Government General Hospital, Kakinada, deposed about giving treatment to P.W. 1 on 04.02.2005. He speaks about the fractures to left femur and the operation conducted on 12.02.2005 i.e., open reduction and intra meullar nailing. He also deposed about screw fixation and K.Y. fixation for trimalledar fracture to right ankle. P.W. 2 produced case sheet-Ex. A-12 and the x-rays Exs. A-14 and A-15, to show that the petitioner was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Kakinada. The evidence of P.W. 2 also establishes that the claimant sustained permanent disability. The Tribunal referred to the three fracture injuries and five abrasions on the body of the injured. After referring to the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2, the Tribunal found that the injuries sustained by the claimant are very much proved not only through the oral evidence of P.W. 2 but also by the documentary evidence. Basing on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 86,000/- towards pain and sufferance, Rs. 13,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs. 1,200/- towards attendant and extra nourishment charges, Rs. 20,597/- towards hospital, medical died and transport charges and Rs. 75,000/- towards permanent disability. The question is "Whether the Tribunal can award a sum of Rs. 86,000/- towards pain and suffering while awarding Rs. 75,000/- towards permanent disability?"
An identical issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another, . It was also a case where the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs under various heads, namely, transport charges, extra nourishment, medical expenses, additional medical expenses, pain and sufferings, mental agony, additional transport charges, inability of the appellant to participate in public functions, loss of marital life, permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. An objection was raised before the High Court with regard to awarding compensation towards permanent disability. Adverting to the concept of "just compensation", High Court opined that the quantum of damages fixed should be proportionate to the injuries caused. After referring to the authorities, the court opined that Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges and extra nourishment, Rs. 2,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- for medical expenses and Rs. 4,68,000/- towards loss of earning capacity would be just compensation. The High Court computed the loss of earning power at Rs. 4,68,000/- instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- as determined by the Tribunal and deleted a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- that was awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability. Thus, the total amount as determined by the High Court came up to Rs. 9,78,000/-. Challenging the same, the claimant preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. After referring to the judgment in Ramesh Chandra Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, , the Apex Court held that the view of the High Court that no compensation can be granted towards permanent disability once compensation is granted towards loss of earnings and loss of future earnings is unsustainable. The Apex Court opined that total deletion is absolutely unjustified and in fact the same runs counter to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, and B. Kothandapani Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., While approving the loss of earning capacity at Rs. 4,68,000/-, the Apex Court awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the heads of pain and sufferance, Rs. 2,50,000/- under permanent disability, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and further a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the claimant cannot be awarded compensation towards permanent disability and also towards pain and sufferance, cannot be accepted. That being the position, the finding of the Tribunal in awarding compensation under both the counts warrants no interference.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed.
As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this appeal, shall stand closed.