AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The claimant Janga Bikshapathi, having been aggrieved by the dismissal Order/Award of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, ''Tribunal'') in O.P. No. 835 of 2005 dated 04.08.2008, preferred the appeal by impugning the legality and correctness. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Respondents who were served with notice failed to appear and thus taken as heard the respondents for the absence to decide on merits and perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal went wrong in non consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex. X1, that the Tribunal should have seen that the death of deceased was the result of the injuries sustained in the motor accident in the end of April, 2004 and hence to set aside the award of the Tribunal and allow the claim petition for Rs. 2,75,000/- against the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. for the accident resulted from the bus hit the victim, who is no other than mother of the claimant.
Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
Whether the dismissal of the claim for compensation by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what compensation and with what rate of interest the claimant is entitled?
To what result?
POINT-1:
The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 30.04.2004 at 4 pm the mother of the claimant went to the premises of RTC Busstand, Yadagirigutta in order to go to Raghunandapuram, that at same time, the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11Z 1546 reversed the bus in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the bus dashed the claimants'' mother due to which she received severe bleeding injuries over head and other parts of the body, which occurrence is covered by Ex. A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 54 of 2004 u/s 337 IPC.
Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, it is apt to mention the famous quote of Lord Morris that, perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly 1963 (2) All. E.R.-432 remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver 1969 (1) All. E.R. 555 observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding the compensation in case of death for loss of dependency and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially to the children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred for transport and funeral etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred for said injuries sustained from nature of treatment required. The appeal claim herein is thus confined to the quantum from the contention of not correctly taken the multiplicand and multiplier with future prospects in earnings and on the quantum of consortium and funeral expenses etc., in arriving a sum for awarding just compensation.
In this regard, it is well laid down by the Apex Court (Three Judges Bench) in the latest expression in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, at paragraph Nos. 1 and 7 referring to the earlier expressions in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, that compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be assessed and awarded by the Tribunal set up u/s 166 of the Act. The expression ''just compensation'' has been explained in Sarla Verma''s case (supra) holding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. ''Just compensation'' is an adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation.
From the above legal preposition and coming to the factual matrix of case, there is nothing to show from the evidence more particularly P.W.2 eye witness to the accident and P.W.1 who is the son of the deceased by name Janga Mankamma, that the death of the deceased on 20.05.2004 was due to the injuries sustained in the bus accident on 30.04.2004. It is more particularly from the fact that Ex. X1 case sheet of the treatment of said Mankamma who was admitted in Bhongir Area Hospital and there from shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabd shows that after she was admitted in Gandhi Hospital on 17.05.2004, having been shifted from Bhongir Area Hospital for better treatment, she was discharged and the observation is that she was in good condition and thereby discharged. It is also the observation there from to the said conclusion by the Tribunal in para No. 5 of page Nos. 3 and 4 of the judgment. Ex.P3 postmortem report issued by Government Hospital shows the death was either natural or due to septic shock. Either in Ex. A1 FIR issued based on report of P.W.1 about 3 days after the accident occurred for which he is not an eye witness or from Ex. A4 charge sheet, there are no description of injuries much less any injury to any vital part of the body but for to say at the Yadagirigutta Busstand, the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11Z 1546 while coming in rash and negligent manner dashed said Mankamma due to which she sustained multiple injuries and was shifted to Bhongir Area Hospital. When there is nothing to show any injuries to vital part and even post mortem report nowhere shows the death was due to any of the resultant injuries; there is nothing to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the death was not the result of the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the fact remains as concluded by the Tribunal from its discussion on pages 3 and 4 in answering issue No. 1 that the bus dashed the said victim and she fell down and sustained injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital and treated that is proved from the evidence of P.W.2 eye witness apart from PW1 coupled with Ex. A1 FIR, Ex. A4 charge sheet. Once that is the case, when she sustained the injuries and the death taken place about 20 days after the accident was occurred not from the result of the injuries as she was treated as inpatient and was discharged from satisfaction of recovery; the only need to be considered from the maximum Actio personalis moritur cum persona to mean personal injuries claim dies with the person, there can be no compensation that can be claimed for the injuries including for pain and sufferance, but for loss of estate suffered by the claimant including for any transport expenses, medical expenses and treatment. Having regard to the above the dismissal of the claim entirety by the Tribunal from the findings of the death is the result of the injuries sustained in the accident is unsustainable and liable to be set aside as for the loss of estate suffered from the injuries sustained, the claimant is entitled to compensation.
Now in this regard though there is no evidence regarding the medical expenses and treatment, the fact establishes that she was immediately after the accident dated 30.04.2004 was shifted to and admitted in the Government Hospital, Bhongir and later shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad wherefrom she was discharged. Even in Government Hospital the treatment can be taken as free of cost; it is not possible to expect that all the medicines supplied by them and they did not incur any amount. Merely because there is no evidence regarding the amount incurred, the Tribunal cannot dismiss the claim but for to make some guess work in awarding just compensation as per the principles of law discussed earlier. In this regard by considering the length of the treatment and the expenditure incurred in shifting the injured from Yadagirigutta Busstand to Bhongir area hospital once and there from to Gandhi Hospital after some time and there from to the house of the claimant and injured at Yadagirigutta; it requires a minimum of Rs. 5,000/- and the medical expenses a minimum of Rs. 5,000/- that can be award as compensation with interest at the rate of 7 1/2% per annum. Accordingly, point 1 is answered.
POINT -2:
Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is partly allowed while setting aside the award of the Tribunal of Issue No. 2 dismissing the claim against the respondents, the claim is allowed out of Rs. 2,75,000/-, for Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate which the claimant is entitled per annum against the respondents 1 and 2 with interest 7 1/2%/with proportionate costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 2,000/-. There is no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this M.A.C.M.A. shall stand closed.