Rameshchandra vs M.P. State Road Transport Corporation

K.L. Shrivastava, J.—This appeal u/s l10-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (for short ''the Act'') is directed against the Award dated 3-2-1983 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 96 of 1981 whereby the appellant''s claim has been only partly allowed.

The undisputed facts of the case are that at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning of 4th January 1981, the appellant from the village Bag was travelling by the passenger bus bearing registration No. M.P.W. 8188 belonging to the M P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal (respondent No. 1). The bus met with an accident on the bridge of the river Agar which is situated at a distance of 6 k ms. from Bag. Colliding against the poles of the bridge, it has fell down on the bed of the river. At the relevant time it was being driven by Gokul Prasad, the respondent No. 2, the employee of the Corporation.

The appellant filed the claim petition u/s l10-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on 1-7-81 According to the petition, the appellant boarded the bus from Bag for going to Tanda. The respondent No. 2 drove it at great speed and negligently. As a result, he lost control over the vehicle when it was on the bridge of the river Agar. In consequence it collided against the left side of the bridge and fell down in the river. Due to the accident, the appellant sustained injuries on various parts of his body. He was given first aid at Bag hospital and from there he was taken to the Maharaja Yeshwantrao Hospital, Indore. He had sustained fracture in his left hand which had to be kept under plaster He also got himself treated twice at Chara Nursing Home, Indore and was treatment of Dr. Murthy. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was claimed as compensation towards expenses incurred in treatment and Rs. 1, 5,000/- were claimed towards pain and suffering past and future due to the injuries and the consequent disabilities.

The respondent No. 1 Corporation resisted the claim. According to it, the bus was being driven at slow speed. Due to uneven surface of the bridge the main spring leaf was broken and this had resulted in loss of control over the vehicle and the accident look place. It was denied that the accident had occurred due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The allegations regarding injuries to the appellant and his entitlement for compensation were also controverted.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the bus driver and that the appellant had sustained only a simple fracture and some other simple injuries. Ultimately it made the impugned award in the sum of Rs. 5,012 45P. (Rs. 2,612.45 towards expenses in treatment, Rs. 400/- for loss of earning and Rs. 2,000/- in relation to the injuries) with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award.

The appellant''s contention in this appeal is that the award is too inadequate and deserve to be enhanced.

The only question which crops up for consideration is whether the amount of damages awarded by the Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case is too low and requires interference.

In a case of personal injury damages which are awarded fall under the following two heads :

(a) for pecuniary loss and

(b) for non-pecuniary loss,

Full compensation for pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant has to be awarded subject to rules of remoteness and mitigation. As regards non-pecuniary loss or general damages, items of loss and injury for which compensation is claimed have to be ascertained and then the same has to be quantified in terms of money. Personal injuries sustained may be simple or grave and may in addition to pain and hardship may occasion loss of pleasures of life. Damages are awarded in respect of pain and suffering already undergone and likely to be undergone in future, in respect of loss of the amenities of life and in respect of the reduction in the expectation of life. Assessment of damages for pain and suffering has necessarily to depend upon a reasonable view of the case having regard to all the circumstances. It has also to be remembered that damages awarded in an action for torts are compensatory and not punitive. As regards damages to be awarded for the loss of pleasure of life, the personal circumstances of the plaintiff must form the background of the assessment. In this connection reference may usefully be made to the Division Bench decision in Deepti Tiwari v. Banwarilal AIR 196b MP 239. Note has also to be taken of the fall in the purchasing power of the money and also of the fact that the claimant can claim compensation bus once.

Now we proceed to determine the question applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

The appellant as PW 3 has stated that as a result of the accident he had sustained injuries and was given first aid at Bag and was later treated in the Maharaja Yeshwantrao Hospital, Indore for some time and his left hand was placed under plaster. He has further stated that he had twice taken treatment in the Chara Nursing Home lndore and Dr. Desai had performed an operation on 16-1-1981. According to him he was first admitted there for two days and then for thirtten days.

Dr. A.K. Mudgal (PW 6) has stated that he was posted at Bag and had occasion to examine the appellant on 4-1-1981 which is the date of the accident According to him the appellant had two lacerated wounds one on the right knee joint and the other at the right big-toe, in addition to two abrasions. He has also stated that there was a simple fracture of the upper and of left radius with a confusion around the elbow joint.

The appellant has not examined Dr. Murthy or Dr. Desai. In order to prove the extent of disability suffered by him, he has examined Dr. J.K. Bakliwal (PW 7) who has stend that on examining the appellant on 16-12-1982, he had found that the movements of left elbow joint were absent, the flexion movement was between 70 to 90 degrees and extention movement was 20 to 90 degrees. According to him the elbow joint is fixed in mid prove position and that there was 50 to 55% permanent disability of the joint.

No doubt that the appellant could have adduced better evidence in support of his claim. However, in the circumstances of the case, we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence referred to in foregoing paragraphs and the same does reveal that he had to remain admitted in the Chara Nursing Home, lndore for about a fortnight. The appellant must have spent in transporation and towards the stay of atleast one attendant. The learned Tribunal has awarded nothing towards the expenses incurred by the appellant during this period of hospitalisation. We are of the view that it is reasonable to allow a sum of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand rupees) to the appellant towards expenses and loss of income incurred by him during this period.

The appellant as PW 3 has stated that he is engaged in cloth business and attends weekly markets nearby. According to him due to the disability in his left hand he has to suffer loss of business. The appellant has not filed any income tax return for the assessment year following that of the accident and there is no credible material to hold that as a result of the accident, he has to suffer loss in his business. However, it cannot be gainsaid that the appellant who is aged about 35 years has become subjected to life long inconvenience as a result of the accident, with the constant consciousness of the disability resulting from the physical handicap. The version of Dr. Bakliwal (PW 7) is that the appellant''s disability is funtional and not total disability. He has also stated that looking to the solid bony fusion physiotherapy would not be much helpful According to him further operation is possible, but that may weaken the elbow.

In the decision in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Qimat Rai Jain and Others, right arm of the claimant aged 35 years drawing Rs. 400/-had to be amputated and after the accident he bad to work on a lower post on a salary of Rs. 1:0/-. An award of Rs. 50,000/- was made in his favour. The appellant in the instant case has not suffered such a serious handicap. In the decision in Gyan Prakash Bhargava Vs. Baboo Lal and Another, the claimant, a bank manager bad suffered fracture of right hand and had to remain as indoor patient for 46 days and was under treatment for more than two years. The injury had resulted in re-shaping of hand and reduction in strength by 40%. He could not lift weight, comb hair, play badminton and drive car, There was impairment in writing also. An award in the sum of Rs. 40,000/-was made.

u/s 110 B of the Act the Tribunal is required make an award determining the amount of compensation when appears to it to be just. This certainly gives, a wide power and the justness of the compensation has to be seen keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case. It is rightly remarked that in as essment of compensation arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master. In the instant case, the appellant who has been an Income Tax payer has suffered disability of his left band and stands left to face in conveniences in his daily life during all the years of his normal span of life and also in his business. We, therefore, find that the award made by the learned Tribunal viewed in the context of the facts of the case, is certainly too inadequate. We are of the view that an amount of Rs. 4012.45 P towards expenses incurred and loss of business Rs. 30l2.45 awarded by the Tribunal plus further sum of Rs. 1000/- allowed by this Court and Rs. 12 000/- for pain and suffering and life long inconveniences would constitute just compensation. The amount of the impugned award has, thefore, to be enhanced accordingly.

With reference to Section 110-CC of the Act, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged that it permits grant of interest from the date of the application and there is no reason why the Tribunal should not have allowed it from this date We find that the contention has force. In the decision in Smt. Chameli Wati and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, the Supreme Court allowed interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of the application

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. It is ordered that the respondents shall pay to the appellant Rs. l6.012.45 P. with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application i e. 1-7-1981 till payment. The impugned award shall stand accordingly modified. The respondents shall bear their own costs and shall pay to the appellant the latter''s costs of this appeal. Counsel''s fee Rs. 200/- only if certified.