Prema G.S. vs Ajith and Others

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

With consent of learned counsel on both sides, appeal is taken up for final hearing. The claimant has filed this appeal, being not fully satisfied with the compensation awarded by the MACT. In a petition filed by her u/s 166 of MV Act, 1988, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,63,300/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till date of deposit, Respondents, owners and insurer respectively, of the offending vehicle, were directed to pay the assessed loss/compensation. The award passed by the MACT has not been questioned by the respondents.

Owners of the offending vehicles having not appeared, were placed exparte by the MACT. Insurance company filed its written statement and contested the case. Based on the pleadings, issues were raised.

Sri. K. Manjunatha Rao Bhonsle, learned Advocate, argued that the Tribunal has committed serious error by not correctly appreciating the evidence and in not awarding just and reasonable compensation, keeping in view the fact that on account of permanent disability suffered, the claimant-appellant will not be able to earn her living, take care of her family and lead a normal life. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has to spend in future also for treatment. Learned counsel contended that there is meager award towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourished diet, attendant charges, inasmuch as huge amount was spent by the appellant, white she was hospitalized and also took follow-up treatment. Learned counsel submitted that in view of amputation of right arm, appellant had to take service of an attendant round the clock for obtaining of treatment. According to learned counsel, the Tribunal has awarded paltry sum as compensation.

Sri, M. Narayanappa, learned counsel for the insurance company, supported the impugned judgment and argued that the appellant has not made out a case for enhancement of compensation and hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

Perused the record. The rival contentions haws received my consideration. There being no challenge to the impugned judgment and award by the respondents, only point for consideration is, ''whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation?''

An accident victim, who survives and suffers permanent disablement, suffers on many counts. A disabled person has to spend for treatment in future also. The compensation which has to be awarded in motor vehicle claim cases has to be just compensation, for the expenses incurred for immediate treatment and the amount likely to be spent for future treatment and also the resultant loss of income.

In R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, , Apex Court has held that the Tribunal or Court is required to fix the amount of compensation to accident cases, the same involves some guess work, hypothetical consideration and some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability which have to be viewed with objective standards.

In Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, , Apex Court, while considering the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the claimant has held that the whale idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was, insofar as money can.

In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, , it has been held that a person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to learn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.

In the background of the said ratio of law, the matter has to be considered, to find out, whether, the compensation awarded to the appellant by the MACT is just and reasonable or she is entitled to enhanced compensation under the relevant heads?

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,63,300/- with interest under the following heads:

1.

Pain & suffering

Rs. 35,000/-

2.

Medical expenses

Rs. 22,500/-

3.

Food & Nutrition Charges

Rs. 5,000/-

4.

Medical Attendant charges

Rs. 6,000/-

5.

Travelling charges

Rs. 2,000/-

6.

Loss of income during laid off period

Rs. 12,000/-

7.

Loss of life amenities and pleasure

Rs. 10,000/-

8.

Physical disfiguration

Rs. 10,000/-

9.

Loss of expectation of life

Rs. 10,000/-

10.

Loss of future income due to disability

Rs. 5,50,800/-

Total

Rs. 6,63,300/-

Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate. Tribunal has rightly held that examination of Doctor is not necessary, since the injury suffered by the petitioner is a scheduled injury. Ex.P-51 - photograph of the claimant, shows that her right hand is imputed.

Appellant was in the Hospital for 25 days end she has token follow-up treatment for four months. She was admitted to the Hospital on 09.10.2007 and was discharged on 02.11.2007. Ex.P-5 is the discharge card. Tribunal has taken that there is 90% permanent disability to the right arm and by taking the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- p.m., applying multiplier as 17, the loss of income on account of permanent disability was determined at Rs. 5,50,800/-.

Claimant-appellant, aged about 30 years, is a milk vendor. There is no credible proof with regard to her income. However, the accident having been taken place on 08.10.2007, the appellant can be expected to earn atleast Rs. 4,000/- p.m. Indisputably, there is amputation of right arm. Appellant will not be able to perform any job. It is a case of total functional disability. On account of the amputation of right arm, she will suffer from handicap and social stigma through out her life. For the remaining life, she will have to suffer the trauma of not being able to do normal work and enjoy her life. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has not assessed the loss in the correct perspective and award passed by it cannot be held to be just and reasonable. In my opinion, just and reasonable compensation, which the respondents have to pay to the appellant is as follows:

1.

Pain & Suffering

Rs. 50,000/-

2.

Medical expenses, as per bills

Rs. 22,500/-

3.

Incidental expenses such as, conveyance, attendant charges, nourished diet

Rs. 20,000/-

4.

Loss of income during laid off period (4000 x 4)

Rs. 16,000/-

5.

Loss of future earnings (4000 x 12 x 17 x 90%)

Rs. 7,34,400/-

6.

Loss of amenities of life including disfigurement and discomfort etc.,

Rs. 1,00,000/-

Total

Rs. 9,42,900/-

In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned judgment and award is modified. The compensation payable by the respondents to the appellant-claimant is determined at Rs. 9,42,900/-, which shall carry interest at 6%, p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till date of deposit.

Respondents are granted two months time for depositing of the balance amount in the MACT. No order as to costs.