Maddimadugu Diva Prasad vs Asadullah

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The injured-claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge, II F.T.C.,), Nalgonda, (for short, ''Tribunal'') in M.V.O.P. No. 243 of 2007 dated 6-11-2010, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,57,200/- as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-, for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). Heard Smt. K. Rajitha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Suri, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-National Insurance Company Limited. The 1st respondent who was served vide acknowledgement dated 2-3-2011 is called absent and hence taken as heard to decide on merits. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter being referred as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The contentions in the grounds of appeal and in the course of hearing the appeal in nutshell are that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is contrary to law, unsustainable and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the permanent disability suffered by the claimant and should have multiplier method in arriving the correct conclusion and thereby sought to allow the appeal as claimed. Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for insurer that for this court while sitting in appeal, there is nothing to interfere but for if at all to reduce the rate of interest if not also the compensation arrived by the Tribunal and hence to dismiss the appeal.

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?

Points-1:

The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 28-8-2006 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (D.C.M. Van bearing No. AP 29 T 2998) belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent, dashed the motor cycle of the appellant from its behind, as a result he sustained fractures to his legs and grievous injuries all over the body (as per Ex. A-3) medical certificate and Ex. A-6 discharge summery), which occurrence is covered by Ex. A-1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 250 of 2006 and Ex. A-2 charge sheet and the evidence of the claimant P.W.I. The Tribunal after considering the earnings of deceased at Rs. 1,500/- and 45% permanent disability, in all awarded compensation of Rs. 1,57,200/- against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly.

Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, it is apt to state 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. In Ward v. James 1965 (1) All. E.R. 563, it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. 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 L.J. 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 LORD v. in 555 All.E.R (1) 1969 Cleaver, Parry Morris>observed that to compensate I 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 though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, CA Nos. 1799 and 1800 of 1989 with SLP (Civil) 4586 of 1989 nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. 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 compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals 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 from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required.

From the above legal position, coming to the factual matrix, Ex. A-5 is the certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Devarakonda, for the injuries sustained by the claimant. Later, he was shifted to Mother Theresa Hospital, Devarakonda, where he was treated as per Ex. A-3-Injury and Operation Certificate and Ex.A-7 is the disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, which was also proved by P.W. 2-Dr. V. Prashanth of the District Medical Board. As per the claim petition and also as per the evidence of P.W. 1-injured and the finding of the Tribunal his age as on the date of accident was 34. For a person aged between 31 to 35, the multiplier applicable is ''16'' as per Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and his earnings as per the findings of the Tribunal taken was at Rs. 18,000/- p.a. HE claimed his avocation as electrician. Even the earnings of a coolie and domestic contribution of house woman can be taken at Rs. 3000/- per month as per Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and thus the amount of Rs. 18,000/- as income of the injured taken by the Tribunal is very low. Even a on the date of accident in August, 2006 it can be estimated the earnings atleast at Rs. 2400/- per month with 50% increase thereon of future prospects and by adopting multiplier 16 as laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, referring to the earlier expression in Sarla Verma (supra); it comes to Rs. 3600/- and 45% disability therefrom comes to Rs. 3,600/- per month x 45/100 = Rs. 1,620 x 12 = 19,440/- per annum x 16 multiplier = Rs. 3,11,040/-. Besides that he is also entitled to transport charges, attendant charges, pain and suffering and medical expenses and the trial Court since rightly considered Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment and Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering added to it for loss of earnings, transport and attendant charges Rs. 8,960/- can be taken, totaling Rs. 3,40,000/-, which is more than what was prayed for i.e. Rs. 2 lakhs. Hence, the claim confined to Rs. 2, lakhs with interest at 71/2% per annum as per Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, , Sarla Verma (supra) and Rajesh (supra). Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.

Point-2:

In the result, the appeal is allowed by modifying the award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs. 1,57,200/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 71/2% per annum from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/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 Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to what is withdrawn if any so far and the remaining amount of the claimant if any by invested in Fixed Deposit (FD) for three (3) years in a nationalized bank. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.