Channakeshava vs Srinivasa and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the injured claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 17th August 2012, passed in MVC No. 589/2011, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-, is inadequate.

The appellant claims to be aged about 18 years and earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month from agricultural operation. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 6:00 P.M., on 11-01-2011, when the appellant was walking on the left side of the road in front of the house of Rajanna, near Maggehalli, at that time, the driver of Tractor bearing Registration No. KA-13/TA-575/576, came from the hind side i.e. Singapura side and dashed against him. As a result, he fell down and the wheel of the Tractor ran over his left leg and immediately, the appellant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Hassan and thereafter he took treatment at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and St. John. Hospital, Bangalore.

It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated adequately.

On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 25.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 17th August, 2012. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for second respondent/Insurance Company, for considerable length of time.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri. Guruprasad, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the appellant, for the reason that the appellant was aged about 18 years and doing agricultural operation, earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month and the accident has occurred in the year 2011. Therefore, he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant at least between Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month and awarded reasonable compensation on account of the grievous injuries and disability sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. He further submitted that, on account of the grievous injuries sustained, the appellant has undergone treatment for a period of 21 days as in-patient in different Hospitals and the Doctor, after looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and amputation of left leg above knee, i.e. half of the thigh, has assessed the permanent functional disability at 40% towards whole body. The same is liable to be re-assessed by taking 100% disability and the appellant has to pull on the life with the said disability for the rest of his life and he cannot do the work as he was doing earlier to the accident. On the advise of the Doctor, the appellant has taken follow-up treatment and on account of the permanent disability, the appellant has lost the future happiness, comforts and amenities in life. Further, it is stated that the appellant has to incur future medical expenses towards purchase of artificial limb on account of amputation of his left leg. All these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by Tribunal, while computing compensation payable to the appellant, under various heads. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by enhancing reasonable compensation under all the heads and also award reasonable compensation towards loss of income during treatment period, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness, future medical expenses and loss of marriage prospects as the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under these four heads.

Further, learned counsel appearing for injured claimant/appellant vehemently submitted that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% p.a. is also on the lower side as the accident has occurred on 11-01-2011 and in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, at least 8% to 10% interest per annum may be awarded in the instant case, to meet the ends of justice and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for second respondent/Insurer, inter alia, sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone and hence, interference in the same is unwarranted.

However, after going through the oral and documentary evidence available on file and after going through the nature of injuries sustained, amputation of left leg above knee, age and avocation of the appellant, nature and duration of treatment, etc. he fairly submitted that, reasonable enhancement may be made towards injury, pain and sufferings and reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of amenities, loss income during treatment period, future medical expenses, loss of marriage prospects, etc. and rate of interest may also be reasonably modified, in accordance with law.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for second respondent/Insurer and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?"

After perusal of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was aged about 18 years and doing agricultural operations. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file and having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, medical expenses and also the disability sustained by appellant, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- towards medical expenses as per the medical bills and prescriptions and Rs. 17,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.

However, so far as the compensation awarded under injury pain and sufferings, and loss of future earnings is concerned, the same is on the lower side and needs to be re-determined. Admittedly, in view of the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries such as fracture of pelvis, fracture of the spine - SI vertebra, fracture of shaft of the left femur, swollen and cold left lower thigh, leg and foot with no movements or sensation and absent pulses, blackish discoloration of left foot and 3 other injuries, and amputation of left leg above the knee. The Doctor has assessed 88% functional disability towards left lower limb and 40% towards whole body. But, the Tribunal has re-assessed the whole body permanent disability at 25%. The same, in our opinion is on the lower side and needs to be re-assessed. The appellant was aged about 18 years and lost his left leg above knee. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we re-assess the whole body disability at 60% to meet the ends of justice. The appellant being aged about 18 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Further, it is seen that the monthly income assessed by Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- is on the lower side and having regard to the age, avocation and the year accident, we re-assess the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 6,000/-, to meet the ends of justice.

Further, it is seen that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability, future medical expenses and loss of marriage prospects. Admittedly, the appellant was aged about 18 years and on account of amputation of his left leg above knee, his marriage prospects are seriously affected and he has to purchase the artificial limb. The appellant would be deprived of future amenities and comforts in future life. It is stated that the appellant took treatment as in-patient for quite a long period on account of permanent physical disability. During this period, he must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony and must have also spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from incidental expenses. Further, on account of the grievous injuries and permanent disability sustained, the appellant has to be under continuous medication in future and incur future medical and other incidental expenses. Because of the injuries and amputation, the appellant must have been away from work for at least six months. The appellant was aged about 18 years at the time of accident and therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is ''18'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries, permanent physical disability, nature and duration of treatment undergone and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards injury pain and sufferings as against Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 7,77,600/- (i.e. Rs. 6,000/- x 12 x ''18'' x 60/100) towards loss of future income as against Rs. 2,16,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

Further, as already stated above, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness, future medical expenses and loss of marriage prospects. Therefore, in the light of the discussion made above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 36,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month for a period of six months; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects as the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under these heads.

Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 15,05,600/- as against Rs. 4,25,000/- awarded by Tribunal and there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 10,80,600/-.

Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for appellant, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 11-01-2011. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 9% per annum, on the enhanced compensation.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 17th August 2012, passed in MVC No. 589/2011, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 15,05,600/- as against Rs. 4,25,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows:

There would be enhancement of compensation by Rs. 10,80,600/- with 9% interest per annum.

The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,80,600/-, with interest thereon at 9% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

On such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest.

Remaining sum of Rs. 2,80,600/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately on deposit by the Insurer.

Office to draw award, accordingly.