Pidathala Bala Venkataswamy vs V.V. Nagalakshmi Reddy and Others

B.K. Somasekhara, J.—The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool in OP. No. 123 of 1989 dated 22-3-1990 is challenged by the claimant who lodged a claim u/s 110-A of the M.V. Act, 1939 (for short the Act) claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- but succeeding only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.

The basis of the claim was the personal injury said to have been suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 5-3-1989 and which is found to be due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry AAO 3492, the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.

Only the adequacy of the compensation under the award is challenged. Barring the contention of Mr. Kota Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent that the limit of the insurance company cannot exceed Rs. 1,50,000/-, no other finding of the Tribunal is called in question.

Accepting the case of the claimant that he suffered serious injuries due to the accident resulting in the loss of left leg above knee level after an amputation conducted during the treatment, he was hospitalised for a long time, he being a labourer having lost the income at Rs. 25/- per diem, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 500/- towards transportation charges, Rs. 2000/- for extra-nourishment, Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- for permanent disability and Rs. 25,000/- for loss of earning power, and in all Rs. 50,000/-.

Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the claimant has contended that the items of compensation so considered and awarded are not correct, nor proper and that the amount of compensation so awarded for each item as such is also inadequate. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Shaik Saibaqtualla and Others, ., P. Raju v. Managing Director, Chittoor Co-op. Sugars Limited, Chittoor 1996 (1) ALT 27, and Dr. Gop Ramchandani v. Onkar Singh 1 (1994) ACC 103, the learned Counsel for the claimant contended that in whatever manner the case is considered, even for mere pain and suffering, the compensation in this case ought to be Rs. 1,00,000/- and more and the global compensation ought to be Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Mr. Kota Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent has pointed that in view of APSRTC v. Ramanaiah 1988 ACJ 228. and K. Sapna v. B. Appa Rao 1988 ACJ 113. , in whatever manner the materials in this case are examined, the compensation in this case cannot be what the claimant has sought for and anything reasonable could be as is awarded by the Tribunal.

It is in the evidence, as rightly noted by the Tribunal, that the claimant having sustained the injuries suffered amputation of the left leg above the knee level. The learned Advocate for the appellant is right in pointing out that even according to Ex.A-4, the wound certificate, the claimant suffered more than one injury, which are as follows:-

(1) A lacerated injury over the right forearm below the elbow size 4" x V2", bleeding present, skin deep.

(2) A crush injury on the left leg below the knee joint.

(3) A lacerated injury over the right leg below knee joint of size 3" x 1/2 fresh bleeding present, skin deep.

(4) A lacerated injury over the right leg below knee, size 11/2" x 1/2" skin deep, bleeding present.

(5) Two lacerated injuries over the right ear of size 1" x 1/2 ", fresh bleeding present.

In fact, it was injury No. 2 which resulted in the amputation of the left leg as above. The claimant was hospitalised for a long time in addition to his visiting the hospital subsequently several times. The disability due to the loss of left leg should be 100% in so far as the leg is concerned. There cannot be any doubt that it is a permanent disability. Undoubtedly, the claimant suffering so many injuries must have suffered shock and pain at the time of the accident and further more pain and deep agony at the time amputation of the leg and loss of amenities of life during the period of treatment for about 4-6 months and loss of amenities during his remaining span of life, he was hardly 27 years of age at the relevant time. Phantom limb is one of the syndromic phenotypic experience of a victim of an accident losing a limb. In such a situation, this Court in a latest pronouncement in Kadali Satyanarayanamma and Others Vs. Sayyapu Raju Ramakrishna Raju and Another, . awarded Rs. 15,000/- for such an item and there is no reason why such amount should not be granted in this case also. The above case involved amputation of the right leg above knee level whereas this case concerns the left leg. Barring that, there is no difference between the two cases. In the above case, considering so many aspects and comparable cases, Rs. 45,000/- were awarded towards general damages for an accident dated 16-1-1988. So the proximity of the accident and of the present accident dated 5-3-1989 is too small and in this case also 45 Rs. 45,000/- should be awarded towards general damages viz., injury itself in so far as amputation of the leg is concerned. For injury No. 1, Rs. 2000/-, for injury No. 3, Rs. 5000/- and for injury Nos. 4 and 5 Rs. 3000/- in the nature of location and dimension would suffice the justness in fixing the compensation. Thus Rs. 75,000/- by way of general damages for the injuries in this case ought to be awarded.

Now coming to the special damages, different claims have been made towards medical and incidental expenses. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Kota Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the insurer, nothing more than a fixed sum can be awarded to cover such an item and not more than what is claimed, On examination, that is found to be Rs. 5000/- and that is awarded towards medical and all incidental expenses, including attendant charges.

As regards the loss of income, fixed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per diem or Rs. 750/- per month, since the claimant was to be out of employment for about six months, the amount should be Rs. 4500/-. Since the claimant claimed only Rs. 2500/- under the said head, that should be awarded. Regarding the future loss of income, fixing the multiplic and at Rs. 9000/- on the basis of the income as above and multiplier at 15 for his age of 27 years, the notional loss of income would be Rs. 1,35,000/-. Major portion of one limb being lost which is 100% with reference to the limb, it should be l/6th of the entire body and thus 1/6th of Rs. 1,35,000/- would come to Rs. 24,000/- and odd. In the nature of the approximation in calculation, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards future loss of income can be awarded. Patently, due to the loss of major portion of the leg, there has been disfigurement for an young man like the claimant, in addition to social disability being called as a (not clear). In the Satyanarayanamma''s case (6 supra), Rs. 5000/- were awarded towards such an item and the same amount should be awarded in this case also. Thus, the sum total of all the items comes to Rs. 1,32,500/-. In Pushpa Thakur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, . for the fracture of bones of both the legs leading to amputation of 30 one of the legs, the Supreme Court awarded a global compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. That confirms that in a case of (this type) the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- is reasonable and can be minimum to be escalated depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This case having been examined on its own facts, if more than Rs. 1,00,000 /- is awarded as global compensation, it cannot be termed as excessive. This demonstrates that the award of the Tribunal fixing the compensation at Rs. 50,000/- is inexplicably inadequate and deserves to be escalated. It must be added at this stage that most of the precedents relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, barring some general principles did not cover the facts and circumstances of this case, regarding which Satyanarayanamma''s case (6 supra) dealing with many comparable cases has operated upon the facts and circumstances of this case to arrive at just compensation. Thus, the attempt of the learned Counsel for the appellant to seek anything more than that cannot be accepted. Since the lorry, a goods vehicle, was involved in the accident, the limit of liability of insurer is Rs. 1,50,000/-.

The Appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is set aside.

The following award is substituted in its place:- The appellant/claimant shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,32,500/- from the respondents, whose liability shall be joint and several, by way of compensation together with costs of the proceedings and interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. If any amount is paid/deposited, it shall be deducted. However, this shall be subject to deposit of the amount in any Nationalised/ Scheduled Bank as per the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas case. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.