Haricharan vs Deepak Sharma and Others

G.D. Saxena, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been preferred by the claimant/appellant against an Award dated 30th October 2004 in Claim Case No. 3/2003 passed by the Fifth Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gwalior (M.P.) with a prayer for enhancement of compensation amount. The facts, in short, are that on 16th June 1999, the claimant/injured was travelling in M.P. Roadways Bus No. MP07-FO 714 from Morena to Gwalior which was driven by Deepak Sharma (respondent No. 1). As the bus involved in accident crossed the Nanganala culvert, due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver, it became imbalanced and turned turtle, resulting claimant travelling in the bus severely injured. The F.I.R. was lodged upon which Crime No. 78/1999 was registered for commission of offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of I.P.C. against the driver and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the award passed by the learned MACT is against the evidence and the principles of law. The compensation is awarded on lower side. It is submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was working as a Mechanic in Morena Depot of M.P. State Road Corporation and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 3000/-. In the accident, he got severe injuries for which he was admitted on deferent dates in the respective hospitals and the operations were conducted. He was under treatment for a long period and huge amount was spent in medicines and other heads. Therefore, on the basis of above, it is prayed that the award amount passed by the learned tribunal may be enhanced up to Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest from the date of submission of the petition before the tribunal.

On the other hand, submission put forth by the respondent No. 4-Insurance Company in the shape of cross-objection is to the effect that the learned tribunal passed the award against the facts and the settled principles of law, which is liable to be set aside.

The question for consideration is whether the learned tribunal passed the award on lower side or being exorbitant is liable to be modified?

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case and the law applicable to the case.

There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise and the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of the damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task. Different formulas are carved and calculations are made, but no amount of compensation could restore the human life. Similarly, the man is like a bubble on flowing water on the heavy trafficking roads. A little negligence some times results into vanishing of the same as a whole, rendering their as helpless orphans and leave dependents to collect his remains and also to look forward to the owners, drivers and insurer to compensate them for such deaths gently living in castles come on the roads and cry for help. That apart, if a scratch is made on the bubble then this human frame stand disturbed having gone crippled for the rest of his life. No amount of compensation could restore the physical frame of such a person having a sufferer from an accident, that is why it has been said by the Courts that whenever any amount is determined as compensation payable for an injury suffered during accident, the object is to compensate such injury so far as the money can compensate because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings and personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.

On reversing back to the case, in the absence of rebuttal, it is proved that the injured/appellant was working as a mechanic in Morena Depot of M.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation and on the fateful day, he was returning back after duty-hours from Morena to Gwalior in a bus involved in accident. It is also admitted that the bus in which he was travelling met with an accident. It is further not in dispute that in accident the appellant got severe injuries on left thigh, parietal part of head including fracture in shaft femur. It is also admitted that the injured was under treatment for a long time and after treatment he could not be cured and could not get perfection.

In Subulaxmi Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and Another, at page 181: the Hon. Apex Court observed as follows:-

...this Court expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of person''s capacity and the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it has been laid down thus: (SCC p. 762, para 15)

The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earning and the victim''s inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.

Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score is not sustainable.

Be it noted, the High Court has granted Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities. In this context, we may profitably refer to Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein this Court after referring to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. Nizam''s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar has laid down as under: (Govind Yadav case, SCC p. 693, para 18)

In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.

Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state whether in the said case, the compensation awarded to the claimant victim was just and reasonable or was he entitled to enhanced compensation under certain heads, namely: (Govind Yadav case, SCC p. 693, para 19)

(i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg;

(ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability;

(iii) Future medical expenses;

(iv) Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg;

(v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage; and

(vi) Loss of expectation of life.

On considering the principles as laid down in above referred cases, the injured/appellant can be benefited by affording compensation for loss of earning though his services after accident was not effected on the ground of accident which may be calculated at Rs. 36,000/- annually. Looking to the percentage of his disability as described by the medical proof as 15 % of the limb, the loss of future earning is worked out at Rs. 5,400/- and by applying multiplier of 13, the amount comes to Rs. 70,200/-. Apart from aforesaid, an additional sum of Rs. 60,000/- is awarded under the Heads: (i) "expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure" and (ii) "future medical expenses" beings Heads (i) and (iii) as laid down in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, . Hence, now claimant/appellant is held entitled to receive an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,200/- (Rs. One lac thirty thousand two hundred only) in total, instead of Rs. 50,000/-, as directed under the impugned Award by the tribunal. This amount shall be paid within a period of three months from today by the respondents jointly or severally along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition before the tribunal with costs of both the courts. With the aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.