Bhaskar alias Bhaskar Devaram Bangad vs R.K. Srinivasan and Another

V.G. Sabhahit, J.—These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and award passed by MACT - IV, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in MVC No. 1389 of 1992, dated 20-6-1998.

The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

The parties would be referred to with reference to the rank before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-towards injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 10-5-1992. It was alleged that while he was going on the left side of the road on his TVS moped on Bangalore Tumkur Road near Hosanijagal, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-03-T-1126 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Petitioner suffered crush injuries to both the legs and later his left leg has been amputated above the knee. The petitioner was working as a driver. He claimed compensation from respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending lorry.

The second respondent filed objections statement before the Tribunal and the first respondent did not choose to contest the case before the Tribunal. Having regard to the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed following three issues:

Whether the petitioner proves that on 10-5-1992, at about 9.30 a.m. while he was standing with his TVS moped on the left side of the road near Hosanijagal, on Bangalore Tumkur N.H. 4 road, a lorry bearing No. AP-03-T-1126 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, and ran over the legs of the petitioner?

Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

What order or award?

On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner got himself examined as P.W. 1 and also examined P.W. 2 on his behalf and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 20. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence has been lead however the Insurance Policy has been marked as Ex. R1. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20-6-1998 answered Issue Nos. 1 arid 2 in the affirmative and held that petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- with interest at 10% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment. Respondents 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and respondent 2 was directed to deposit the compensation amount.

That being aggrieved by the above said judgment and award of the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred MFA No. 1578 of 1999 seeking enhancement of compensation as claimed in the petition and being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the owner and insurer-respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal have preferred MFA No. 83 of 1999. Since these two appeals arise out of the same judgment and award, they are disposed of by this common order.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a lower side and having regard to the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate. He submitted that the income of the petitioner taken for the purpose of arriving at the loss of earning capacity is on a lower side and petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation.

The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2-appellants in MFA No. 83 of 1999 submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner had suffered crush injuries in the left leg and left leg had to be amputated 6 inches above the knee and having regard to the age of the injured and his occupation, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. However, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest on the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- which has been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning capacity and since this amount pertains to the loss of earning capacity in the future, the petitioner was not entitled to interest on the said amount. Having regard to the contention of the parties, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are.-

(1) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a lower side? If so, whether the petitioner-appellant in MFA No. 1578 of 1999 is entitled enhancement of compensation?

(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in warding interest on the compensation awarded towards loss of future earnings?

(3) Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for interference in these appeals?

We answer the above points as follows.-

Point No. 1 -- In the negative. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

Point No. 2 -- In the affirmative.

Point No. 3 -- In the negative for the following reasons.-

Point No. 1.--The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the petitioners under the following heads:

1.

Medical treatment

Rs. 50,000/-

2.

Nutritious diet, paid on attendant etc.

Rs. 5,000/-

3.

Conveyance charges

Rs. 5,000/-

4.

Pain and suffering

Rs. 16,000/-

5.

Loss of expectation and amenities in life

Rs. 25,0007-

6.

Loss of income during laid up period and future loss of income due to disability etc.

Rs. 4,50,000/-

Total:

Rs. 5,50,000/-

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a driver and the income of Rs. 2,500/-per month taken by the Tribunal is on a lower side. He also submitted that the compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards loss of future earnings awarded by the Tribunal is on a lower side. There is no merit in this contention. It is clear from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly held that injured-petitioner was aged 30 years at the time of the accident, there was no material regarding the income of the petitioner and hence the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 2,500/- per month. And in the absence of any specific evidence regarding the exact income of the petitioner as a driver and having regard to the date of accident i.e., 10-5-1992 the income of Rs. 2,500/- per month taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on a lower side and is just and reasonable. The Tribunal has rightly held that the loss of earning capacity is 100% as the left leg of the petitioner has been amputated and he cannot work as a driver. The injured was aged 30 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal adopted multiple of 15 and wherefore the compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of future earnings is just and reasonable and cannot be said to be on a lower side. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads of compensation awarded by it is also just and reasonable and cannot be said to be on a lower side and accordingly, we hold that the petitioner-appellant is not entitled to enhancement of compensation as sought in this Appeal No. 1578 of 1999.

Point No. 2.--The Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- including Rs. 4,50,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and future loss of income due to disability etc., and has awarded interest at 10% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment. The learned Counsel appearing for the owner-insurer-the appellant in MFA No. 83 of 1999 has rightly confined his argument regarding award of interest only in respect of loss of future earnings as the entitlement of the petitioner for interest on the compensation awarded under the other heads cannot be assailed. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the owner-insurer that the compensation awarded towards future loss of income due to disability is loss that would be suffered by the petitioner in the future and therefore the same would not attract award of rate of interest as done by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, .

Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enables the awarding of simple interest on the compensation awarded at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf. The interest is not awarded for the damage done. Interest should be awarded to the claimant for being kept out of money which ought to have been paid to them. The claimants would be entitled to the compensation from the date of cause of action i.e., the injury sustained or death of the deceased and they would be entitled to the amount of compensation awarded towards the injury or death of the person from the date of claim and interest would take care of the period between the date of claim and date of realisation. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel that loss of future earnings or loss of dependency assessed by the Tribunal would not be entitled to award of interest as the said amount is paid in advance to the claimants. Loss of future earnings and loss of dependency is assessed so as to compensate the petitioner/legal representative towards the death of the person on whom they were dependent and this amount of loss of dependency would become available to the claimants prior to the award and in view of the fact that the said amount is withheld till the passing of the award, Section 171 enables the Tribunal to award interest from a date not earlier than the date of making of the claim. The decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in R.D. Hattangadi''s case, supra, is not helpful to substantiate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant and on the other hand, the ratio in the said case would show that the interest would not be payable in respect of future expenditure under different heads. In the said case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was considering the claim for compensation by an injured in the accident. In view of the fact that, compensation awarded in the said case towards expenses already incurred and the expenses to be incurred in the future, Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct that interest is to paid over the amount which has become payable on the date of the award and not which is to be for expenses to be incurred and as such, the claimant would not be entitled to interest over such amount of expenditure to be incurred in future. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows:

"So far the direction of the High Court regarding payment of interest at the rate of 6% over the total amount held to be payable to the appellant is concerned, it has to be modified. The High Court should have clarified that the interest shall not be payable over the amount directed to be paid to the appellant in respect of future expenditure under different heads. It need not be pointed out that interest is to be paid over the amount which has become payable on the date of award and not which is to be paid for expenditures to be incurred in future. As such, we direct that appellant shall not be entitled to interest over such amount".

Loss of future earnings and loss of dependency is the amount which has become payable on the date of the award and it is not an expenditure to be incurred in the future. The claimant in personal injury cases will have suffered a wrong at the hands of the respondents. Injured has not done any wrong and wherefore he is entitled to compensation from the respondents which has to be full and fair compensation for that, he has suffered and the compensation is to be given to him once and for all. No amount of compensation can put the petitioner back again into his original position. However, the only way by which the law can give redress to the petitioners is by awarding compensation. The petitioner can never sue again for above compensation. The injured would be entitled to a compensation from the date of petition. However, the petitioner would be deprived of the said compensation till the award is passed by the Tribunal and wherefore, the Motor Vehicles Act enables the Tribunal to award interest from the date of petition to the date of payment. The loss of future earnings would also be the amount which would become payable to the petitioner and it is not an expenditure to be incurred in the future like the compensation awarded specifically to meet the expenses in the future by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Wherefore, the loss of future earnings in injury cases and loss of dependency in fatal accident cases would not fall outside the ambit of interest pool and claimant would be entitled to interest on the said compensation also.

In the above referred case, the compensation that was awarded to the claimant comprised of the expenditure already incurred by the claimant and also the expenditure to be incurred by the claimant in the future. In the said case compensation was awarded to the petitioner on both the counts i.e., the expenses incurred by the claimant and expenses to be incurred in the future. The claimant was awarded compensation under the following heads inter alia along with other heads of compensation:

Expenses towards drugs and tablets Rs. 9,000/- for the present Rs. 18,000/- for the future.

Expenses towards Ayurvedic medicine Rs. 7,200/- for the present Rs. 12,000/- for the future.

Expenses towards bedsore dressing charges Rs. 20,000/- for the present Rs. 10,000/- for the future.

Expenses towards catheterization charges Rs. 10,000/- for the present Rs. 5,000/- for the future.

Expenses towards bladder wash charges and enema charges Rs. 5,000/- for the present Rs. 5,000/- for the future.

Expenses towards physiotherapy Rs. 34,200/- for the present Rs. 50,000/- for the future.

In view of the above, Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that interest is not to be paid for expenditure to be incurred in future.

In view of the above, we hold that the compensation awarded under the head loss of future earnings would also attract interest awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, we answer Point No. 2 in the negative.

In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 and 2, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference in these appeals and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following orders are passed:

MFA No. 1578 of 1999 and MFA No. 83 of 1999 are dismissed. No costs.