Macha Ramulamma vs Sri Y. Srinivasa Rao and Another

Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The injured-claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, ''Tribunal'') in M.V.O.P. No. 308 of 2002 dated 14.07.2005, awarding compensation of Rs. 3000/- as against the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). Heard Sri C. Venkat Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant. Sri K. Venkata Rao, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-United Insurance Company Limited. The notice, sent by registered post, to the 1st respondent returned unclaimed is a sufficient service and despite it, he is called absent. Taken as heard the respondents for their absence to decide on merits and perused the 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 erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from nature of the injuries proved sustained, pain and sufferance there from, treatment undergone and amount incurred for the same and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.

Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?

To what result?

POINT-1:

In deciding point-1 for consideration, the factual matrix of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal is that, on 18.02.2002 at 4.00 P.M. while crossing the road with cattle near bus stand, Neruducherla, the Claimant by name Smt. Macha Ramulamma, aged 50 years, resident of Neruducherla Town and Mandal, a milk vendor by avocation with earnings of Rs. 3000/- per month, sustained two simple injuries (as per Ex. A. 2 medical certificate) viz., 1) an abrasion of �" length over forehead and 2) a laceration of �" x �" x 1 c.m. on the left parietal region) in the road accident, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing No. AP 28 U 8899) belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex. B. 1 policy, which is covered by Ex. A. 1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 13/2002 u/s 338 IPC, and Ex. A. 6 charge sheet. As per P.W. 2 Doctor v. Prasanth''s evidence coupled with Ex. A. 3 discharge sheet and Ex. A. 4 medical certificate, she sustained a fracture to clavicle left side, however, the Tribunal rightly not believed for no radiologist report and X-ray and no injury in this regard from Ex. A. 2 medical certificate, which is first in point of time and from inconsistency in the evidence of P.W. 1-injured and P.W. 2-doctor and with reference to the petition averments in this regard. However that does not mean no treatment undergone by P.W. 1 for said injuries sustained. As per P.W. 1 she spent Rs. 2150/- for treatment of the said injuries. As she filed no proof, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal did not consider the same. It was there from, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal by taking into consideration of these two injuries described in Ex. A. 2 medical certificate awarded compensation of Rs. 3000/- only.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the compensation awarded is unjust, unreasonable and the Tribunal is erred in awarding such a meager amount though it was supposed to award just compensation by taking consideration of the nature of injuries referred in Ex. A. 2, nature of treatment required, for the pain and sufferance and loss of earnings; even not believed the Ex. A. 3 and A. 4 and evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 regarding any fracture.

It is not out of context to observe 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 as stated by Lord Morris. 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 Vs. 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 LORD v. in 555 All.E.R (1) 1969 Cleaver, Parry Morris>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 expenditure incurred by an injured or victim of accident, though no proof like bills, prescriptions and hospital charges etc., is filed regarding the medical expenditure and treatment to award a reasonable amount, from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required. The Ex. A. 2 medical certificate and Ex. A. 5 prescriptions themselves show the treatment undergone by the Claimant for the injuries sustained and what is the amount claimed of Rs. 2150/- from nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant is no way unreasonable for taking into consideration by the Tribunal in awarding compensation for said injuries sustained including for pain and sufferance, more particularly second injury is a lacerated injury. This Court there from holds that the amount of Rs. 3000/- awarded by learned Chairman of the Tribunal is no way just compensation.

Having regard to the above, by taking consideration of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment undergone, expenditure incurred for treatment and for pain and sufferance, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- viz., Rs. 2000/- for simple abrasion, Rs. 6,000/- for the lacerated injury including for pain and sufferance and Rs. 2000/- for medical expenses and treatment is arrived as just and reasonable to award. Coming to the rate of interest, the interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal even not in dispute, from the settled proposition of law including from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, interest is awarded at 7�% per annum by modifying and reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.

POINT-2:

Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 7�% per annum from date of petition (MVOP) till realization or deposit with notice. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation are directed to deposit said amount with interest within one month from today, failing which the Claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the Claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.