Prakash vs IFFCO Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.

This appeal by the claimant is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 12.09.2012 passed in MVC No. 487/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. n.) and Additional MACT-IV, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation.

By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,85,400/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

The brief facts of the case on hand are that the appellant was aged about 21 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy prior to the accident and was pursuing his orientation course and also doing part time work in the evening at Vani Bar and Restaurant getting an income of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. from the said employment. Be that as it may, he met with an accident on 01.02.2011 at about 12.30 p.m., when he along with his friend was moving on TVS Star motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-06/W-2276 from Hinyur to Chitradurga as a pillion rider and when he was proceeding on NH4 road near Metikurke the rider of the said motor cycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a Maxi Cab bearing No. KA-26/8522, on account of which he sustained diffuse axonal injury and multiple pressure ulcers, on account of which he was admitted to Government hospital, Hinyur from 01.02.2011 to 14.3.2011 thereafter he was shifted to St. Johns Hospital at Bangalore for further treatment. He has undergone treatment for more than 94 days on different occasions as inpatient. He has examined the Doctor-PW2 who has opined that the appellant has sustained permanent disability to an extent of 84% to the head. On the advice of doctor he has taken bed rest for more than six months. It is further case of the appellant that due to the neurological defects caused on account of the road traffic accident, he suffered pain and agony during treatment period and has spent considerable amount towards medical and conveyance expenses. Further, Tribunal has committed an error in awarding lesser compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness as he is not in a position to continue his job nor prosecute his studies because of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Therefore, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MVC Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 24,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 3,85,400/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

The submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. Spoorthy Hegde, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at only Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is on the lower side since, the accident has occurred on 01.02.2012. Appellant was aged about 21 years at the time of accident and was a student prosecuting his job oriented course (Diploma) and also doing part time job at Vani Bar and Restaurant as a supplier and earning Rs. 5,000/-p.m.. Therefore, income of the appellant is to be re-assessed reasonably. Further, he is quick to point out that on account of injuries sustained he has undergone treatment at Government Hospital, Hinyur and St. Johns Hospital at Bangalore for more than 94 days on different occasions and he has also undergone a surgery. He has also examined the Doctor-PW2 of NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore who issued the wound certificate stating that the appellant has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 84%. He has suffered mental pain and agony during treatment period and has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, nourishing food and attendant charges. On the advice of doctor he has taken bed rest for more than six months. Further, Tribunal has committed an error in awarding lesser compensation towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness. As he is not in a position to continue his education nor he is in a position to do his work as a supplier in the Vani Bar and Restaurant, the same has to be compensated substantially by awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of future income and further since, he is continuing the treatment, he requires reasonable amount towards future medical expenses including incidental expenses. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation.

As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer inter alia contended and sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He fairly submitted that the evidence of the Doctor may kindly be considered and after re-appreciation of the same, award reasonable compensation towards ''injury, pain and suffering'', ''loss of future income'' and ''future medical expenses'' in accordance with law.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"

Occurrence of the accident resulting in the injuries to the appellant is not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 21 years at the time of accident as per the wound certificate-Ex. P6, hale and healthy prior to the accident and was a student studying job orientation course (diploma) and also working as a Supplier in Vani Bar and Restaurant on part time basis and getting income of Rs. 5,000/-p.m. He has not examined the Doctor nor produced any credible documents in this regard. Due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, he has undergone treatment for a period of 94 days on different occasions and in different hospitals and has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. He has suffered mental pain and agony during treatment period and has to pull on the said difficulty through out his life and therefore, he has to be compensated by awarding reasonable compensation towards ''loss of future income'' and after going through the evidence of the Doctor-PW2, we can safely assess the permanent disability at 28% to the whole body. On the advice of the doctor he might have taken bed rest and follow up treatment at least for more than six months. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- per month is on the lower side since the accident is of the year 2011. Having regard to age, avocation and year of accident, we can safely re-assess the income at Rs. 6,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Since, the claimant was 21 years at the time of the accident; the appropriate multiplier to be adopted in the circumstances of the case is ''18''. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards ''injury, pain and suffering'' as against Rs. 50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 36,000/- towards ''loss of income during laid up period'' as against Rs. 12,000/-, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards ''loss of amenities'' as against Rs. 20,000/-, a sum of Rs. 3,62,880/- (Rs. 6,000/-x 12 x 28/100 x 18) towards ''loss of future income'' as against Rs. 1,72,800/-awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards ''future medical expenses''. The Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,10,600/- towards ''medical expenses'' and Rs. 20,000/- towards ''conveyance and attendant charges'', hence, interference by this Court is not called for.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 12.09.2012 passed in MVC No. 487/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. n.) and Additional MACT-IV, Chitradurga is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 7,54,480/- as against Rs. 3,85,400/- and the break-up is as follows:

Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 6% p.a. interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and in the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court in Catena of decisions, we award 9% interest per annum, on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realization.

The respondent No. 1-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,69,080/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 2,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameen Bank, in the name of the appellant for a period often years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it.

The remaining Rs. 1,19,080/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.

Draw the award, accordingly.