Alamgir vs Shrikishan Sitaram Khandelwal and Others

A.R. Tiwari, J.—This appeal has been filed u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, being partly aggrieved by the award given by the Second Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 63/79.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant and his brother Alauddin sustained injuries due to the accident on 5.12.1978 caused by the truck bearing Registration No. MHS 8508. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of this truck. The respondent No. 2 is the driver who drove the aforesaid vehicle at the relevant time. The respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company where this truck was insured. The accident occurred at 9.00 p.m. On 5.12.1978 when the appellant and his brother were proceeding towards Snehlatganj, Indore. The driver particularised above, drove the aforesaid truck rashly and negligently and dashed it against the appellant and his brother as a result of which they sustained the injuries and fracture. The appellant was treated in the M.Y.H Indore. He suffered pain, sufferings, loss of amenities in life and comfort and these sufferings will continue even in future. There was disfiguration of the face. On these facts the appellant claimed the compensation of Rs. 40,000/-. The respondents denied the liability as also the quantum indicated by the appellant in his claim petition. The issues were framed. The learned Member of the Tribunal accepted all contentions of the appellant except the one relating to the quantum of damages. On evaluation of evidence, the Tribunal granted the award of Rs. 5,087.70 Ps. with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- per cent per month from the date of application till realisation.

The appellant, being dissatisfied with this award, has preferred this appeal praying for enhancement as regards quantum of interest.

I have heard the parties and perused the record.

Findings as recorded by the Tribunal are not disputed. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the quantum of damages as fixed by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced. The grievance in this appeal is two-folds--

(1) The quantum is grossly inadequate.

(2) The rate of interests awarded is also low.

The learned Member of the Tribunal had framed two issues as regards the injuries sustained by the appellant. These issues were answered in the affirmative and thus, in favour of the appellant. AW-2 Dr. Govindlal Gupta proved the following injuries sustained by the appellant.

(i) Incised wound 10 cm. x 1.5 cm. over left frontal region, oblique, bone exposed and fractured.

(ii) Incised wound 8 cm. x 1/2 cm. on left frontal region 1 cm. lateral to injury No. 1.

(iii) Lacerated wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. from bridge of the nose to left zyagomatic region gone exposed.

(iv) Lacerated wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. from bridge of the nose to tip of the nose.

(v) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. over middle of upper lip, incisors are also broken.

The Tribunal on proper evaluation of evidence concluded as under:

The result of the above discussion is that the applicant sustained injuries on his face, nose and other parts of the body, his teeth were also broken. It is further proved that on account of injuries there has been disfiguration of his face and jacket plaster was also put. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are thus accordingly answered in favour of the applicant and against the non-applicants.

It is thus, luculent that the appellant has suffered ''disfiguration'' of his face on account of these injuries. The Tribunal has quantified damages as under--

(a) Rs. 5,000/- awarded as general damages,

(b) Rs. 87.70 Ps. awarded as special damages.

Corresponding costs and interest at the rate of 6% pa. from 4.4.1979 till realisation were also awarded.

The aforesaid compensation was fixed on the following fulcrum-

(1) Age of the appellant (12 years).

(2) Number of injuries including disfiguration of face.

(3) Impairment of chances of marriage.

(4) Pain and suffering.

(5) Loss and discomfort.

(6) Reduction in value of money.

The Divisional Bench of this Court in Parmanand and Others Vs. Manohardas, held under:

Having regard to some impairment in the hearing of the right ear and some injuries on the face which according to the claimant have caused some disfiguration. We think that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- would be just and fair compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the claimant.

xx xx xx xx

The provisions are surely benevolent ones and aim at awarding just compensation to the victim. The amount awarded in this case in exfacie meagre and grossly inadequate.

In the instant case, there is no allegation about impairment of any part of the body as such, but there is positive proof of disfiguration of face which certainly is a factor tilting balance in favour of the claimant as regards the enhancement. In the facts and circumstances of this case, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousands) in my view would be just and reasonable compensation.

As regards the rate of interest, it is noticed that the accident had occurred on 5.12.1978. The claim petition was filed on 4.4.1979. In Smt. Anjani''s case 1992 MPWN (Vol. I) 19, the Division Bench of this Court spoke on the question of interest as under:

The accident took place in 1977. Taking into account the devaluation of rupee since then the rate of interest has to be realistic to partly off set the effect of devaluation.

Following the aforesaid principle, I find that the rate of interest in this case deserves to be enhanced to 9% p.a.

It may be stated that, faced with the facts of this case, the level of enhancement in quantum and interest was not seriously disputed.

In the result, the award is modified as under--

(i) The respondents shall pay to the appellant the amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Instead of Rs. 5,087.70P.) and proportionate costs computable on this amount.

(ii) The respondent shall pay interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of Rs. 9/- per cent per annum (instead of 6% p.a.) from 4.4.79 till realisation.

The respondent No. 3 is specified as the authority do discharge the aforesaid obligation.

This appeal thus, stands allowed in part in terms indicated above. The respondent No. 3 shall bear its own costs and shall also pay the costs of the appellant quantified at Rs. 500/-. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are left to bear their own costs. Memo of costs be prepared.

The record of the Tribunal shall be returned immediately.