Jayesh Arodi vs Concorde Motors (India) Ltd.

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the claimant is that on 15.08.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., when he was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. KA-01-TC-311, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and dashed against the road divider. The claimant was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained injuries. He was taken to NIMHANS and thereafter to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital where he took treatment. He was once again admitted to Sharavathi Hospital and has taken treatment. He was aged 23 years and employed in a private firm on a salary of Rs. 8,700/- per month. Due to injuries, he lost his job and entire earning capacity. He has lost control over whole-body and unable to work and there is 100% disability. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section- 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 21,38,000/- along with interest. Seeking enhancement, the present appeal is filed.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. That the Tribunal committed an error in misreading the material evidence on record. That the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are inappropriate. So far as his income is concerned, his employer was examined. The employer has filed a written statement stating that at the time of accident, the claimant was employed under him and his salary certificate was marked as Exhibit-P6 and the appointment order at Exhibit-P4, which shows that he was employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 8,030/- per month. The Tribunal held his income at Rs. 8,030/- per month and applying the multiplier of ''17'' awarded Rs. 16,38,000/- towards loss of future income.

On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that the notional income held by the claimant is on a lower side. The claimant was a Senior Sales Officer in Grade-I in the company of respondent No. 1. It was a secure and permanent job. On the contrary, he could have got better offers as experience grew. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that he is entitled for future prospects. He was aged 23 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, it would be appropriate to grant 50% on the future prospects. Hence, the notional income would have to be considered as Rs. 12,045/- per month (Rs. 8,030 + Rs. 4,015). Hence, the ''loss of future income'' would work out as follows:

Rs. 12,045/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 24,57,180/-

The claimant has sustained several injuries and he was treated in NIMHANS and other hospitals. PWs-3, 5 and 6 who are Doctors, have deposed that they have treated the claimant in the respective hospitals on the dates mentioned therein. The discharge summary has also been marked. The disability certificate would show that the claimant has sustained severe injury to C-6, burst fracture of spinal cord bone with traumatic quadriplegia. Exhibit-P3 is the disability certificate which indicates that there is complete loss of control of upper and lower limbs and there is permanent total neurological disability. Hence, we are of the considered view that Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings is inappropriate for the kind of injury and the pain he has undergone. Hence, the same is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

He has lost sensation of all four limbs. He is totally bed-ridden. He is not in a position to enjoy any life pleasures. Everything in life has been denied to him. Hence, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities is far too paltry. We enhance it by a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

Towards attendant charges, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded. The Tribunal held that since he is unable to attend to his personal activities and an attendant is required. We are of the view that even though the reasoning of the Tribunal is appropriate, the amount of compensation awarded under this head is inadequate. Since an attendant is required 24 hours, though not on a full-time basis, it would be just and reasonable to hold that even a part-time attendant requires to be paid a salary of atleast Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, applying the same multiplier as has been done in the case of the claimant, the attendant charges is worked out as follows:

Rs. 4,500 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 9,18,000/-

Hence, the compensation now awarded is as follows:-

Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 16,37,180/- (Rs. 37,75,180/- less Rs. 21,38,000/-) along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the realisation and shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.