AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The appeal is preferred by the Appellant-claimant against the judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2002 made in M.C.O.P. No. 2002 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, the learned I Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured-Selvaraj met with motor traffic accident on 04.08.1997 at about 6.00p.m. The said injured was riding his TVS-50 bearing registration No. TAK-2335 and he was proceeding along the Ariamangalam Bridge keeping to the left of the road. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No. TAY-2656 belonging to the first Respondent came from east to west direction in Ariamangalam main road in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and hit the TVS 50, which the claimant was riding. Due to the impact, the injured was thrown out of the vehicle and the lorry ran over the left leg of the injured. Due to the same, the left leg was amputated. He sustained a fracture on his right thigh and also other multiple injuries all over the body. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The said lorry was insured with the second Respondent/Insurance Company herein, who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belong to the first Respondent?
Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? if so how much? from whom?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
For permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000/- For pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- For extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- For medical bills Rs. 40,000/- For future loss of income Rs. 20,000/- ---------- Total Rs. 1,85,000/- ---------- Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-claimant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a very low and meagre sum of compensation and the Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount as claimed by the claimant. He further submitted that the disability will affect the earning capacity of the claimant and he has to depend on others for the rest of his life. The Tribunal has not considered all the relevant materials and it has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award and it is a fit case for enhancement.
Learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.
Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the Appellant-claimant, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of M.V.I.report. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of the accident register. Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of the wound certificate. Exs.A.5 and A.6 are the medical bills. Ex.A.7 is the disability certificate. On the side of the second Respondent-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked to support their case. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It is a question of fact and therefore the same is confirmed.
The injured claimant was 29 years old at the time of accident. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that the injured claimant was a lorry cleaner. Further in his evidence, it is stated that it is only the driver of the lorry has caused the accident and he was charge sheeted by Ariyamangalam Police Station in Cr. No. 193 of 1997. Due to the accident, the claimant''s left leg was crushed and later it was amputated. There was a fracture on his right thigh. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Trichy where he was treated as inpatient for the period of 25 days. Later he was referred to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and also at Viswanathan Hospital, Trichy. In the Viswanathan Hospital, a surgery was made and a rod was fixed in his right thigh. P.W.2 is the doctor who examined the injured claimant and fixed the disability at 120%. 85% disability is for amputation of left leg and 35% disability is for fracture of right leg. Ex.A.7 is the disability certificate given by the doctor. The said disability affects 100% earning capacity of the claimant. After taking into consideration the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards permanent disability and also a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards future loss of income. In the case of Sri B.T. Krishnappa Vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, , the Apex Court has considered the relevant factors that are to be taken into consideration before awarding compensation in the injury cases and held as follows:
Although the Tribunal concluded by holding that the assessment of future loss of earnings should be made only at 20 per cent, we feel that the High Court, while making the observation that the Tribunal''s compensation under the heads "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss of earnings during laid up period" was on the lower side, should have given reasons and made its own assessment under these heads, since High Court, as the first appellate authority, is an authority both on facts and law. The High Court''s orders starkly lack in any details on assessment of compensation under these heads. These areas need proper introspection and a more sensitive approach as the Appellant being a mason and a workman represent the weaker section of the community. The Appellant had suffered an irreversible damage to his right leg which will pose difficulties for him in carrying out his avocation as a mason. This Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 , has observed that:
...The jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop in the direction of no fault liability and the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales....[at page 56, para 2]
In the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corporation v. Mahadeva Shetty 203 ACJ 1775 , where the claimant was also a mason, this Court held that:
...It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limb or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance to the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses.A person becomes entitled to damages for the mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired.... [at page 1780, para 15]
Long expectation of life is connected with earning capacity. If earning capacity is reduced, which is the case in the present situation, that impacts the life expectancy as well.
Therefore, while fixing compensation in cases of injury affecting earning capacity the Court must remember:
...No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the Appellant. That is why it has been said by Courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury ''so far as money can compensate'' because it is impossible to equate the money with the human suffering or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." [See R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, ]
Further, the Court in the same case also held that:
In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards." [at page 370, para 12]
After considering the principles enunciated in the judgment cited supra, let me consider the facts of the present case.
Normally the Courts award a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per percentage of disability. Taking into consideration the nature of disability, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per percentage of disability. If a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is awarded for 120% of disability, the loss due to 120% disability works out to Rs. 2,40,000/-. In view of awarding a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- towards loss due to 120% disability, the award amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards future loss of income by the Tribunal is deleted. Hence, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- towards loss due to 120% disability, as against the sums of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of income awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the nature injuries i.e. the amputation of the left leg below the hip and also the fracture in the right leg and also the fact that the injured has taken treatment in various hospitals, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is very reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards extra nourishment. It is very reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards medical bills. Exs.A.5 and A.6 are the series of medical bills. It is an actual expenditure and also there is no dispute that the injured has taken treatment in various hospitals. Also the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards this head is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded 9% interest p.a. from the date of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, the date of award and also the prevailing interest during the period, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed.
The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:
For loss due to permanent disability Rs. 2,40,000/- For pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- For extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- For medical expenses Rs. 40,000/- --------- Total Rs. 3,05,000/- Less the amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,85,000/- ---------- Enhanced amount Rs. 1,20,000/-
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest at 6%p.a. from the date of claim petition.
Under these circumstances, the second Respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-with 6% interest p.a. from the date of claim petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application.
With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.