Ravindra Rawat vs Sheikh Hussain and Others

S.K. Kulshrestha, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assails the adequacy of the compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, District Dhar, in Claim Case No. 32 of 2004, by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 69,850 in relation to the injuries sustained by the applicant, aged 3 years, in a motor accident including amputation of his left hand below elbow.

Insofar as the facts pleaded by the appellant are concerned, there does not appear any dispute between the parties. It was alleged that on 20.2.2004 at about 9 a.m., the respondent No. 2 driving a truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KA 9758 collided with the appellant child causing severe injuries to him. On account of the nature of the injuries it became imperative to amputate his hand, which resulted in permanent disablement. The appellant was treated in the Primary Health Centre, Bagh, District Hospital, Barwani and in Baroda. In the treatment, it was alleged that an amount of Rs. 50,000 was spent.

The insurance company resisted the claim of the appellant and had denied the averments. It was stated that only cover note of the policy was produced and in absence of evidence with regard the truck having been insured with the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 could not be saddled with any liability.

The Tribunal framed six issues, in view of the pleading of the parties and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck in question and as a result of the said accident, injury was caused to the appellant-claimant. In spite of the denial by the insurance company that the said truck was not insured with the said company, the Tribunal, on analysis of the evidence, held that the truck was, in fact, insured with the respondent No. 3 and the insurance company failed to prove that it was driven by a person at the time of accident, who did not hold a proper licence for driving the said vehicle. On perusal of the entire evidence and extent of the injuries sustained by the appellant (child), Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 69,850 as compensation. Considering that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is wholly inadequate, the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the case of amputation of hand, the compensation of Rs. 69,850 was grossly inadequate. He has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Swaminathan 2006 ACJ 1398 , in which the Apex Court, in the case of amputation of the hand, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 towards permanent disability, Rs. 1,00,000 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1,85,000 for future treatment and thus, a total sum of Rs. 4,10,000. Reference has also been made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bansilal v. Om Sai Enterprises M.A. No. 144 of 2001, wherein, in the case of truck driver having income, on account of amputation of hand, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 has been awarded.

The learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that if the provision made in Second Schedule u/s 163-A is perused, the case of a child aged 3 years can be equated with the case of non-earning member and on the basis of the notional income of Rs. 15,000 multiplied by 15, if the percentage of disability is calculated, the claimant is not entitled to any enhancement.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The short question that arises for determination is whether the amount of Rs. 69,850, awarded by Claims Tribunal is just, proper and adequate? Though, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has referred to the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the claim was made u/s 166 thereof and, therefore, though in some matters for a multiplier, the help of Second Schedule can be taken, the assessment of compensation is required to be made on the basis of the harm suffered and its consequences.

From the decision cited by learned Counsel for the appellant, it is apparent that the compensation is required to be awarded in such cases on the basis of the permanent disability suffered, the pain and suffering caused by the injuries and the amount necessary for future treatment. We may reiterate that in the two cases cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the sum awarded was Rs. 4,10,000 and Rs. 6,00,000 respectively.

However, the contention of the learned Counsel is that in the case of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Swaminathan 2006 ACJ 1398 , the age of the person and his income has not been mentioned and in the decision in Bansilal v. Om Sai Enterprises M.A. No. 144 of 2001, the person was a truck driver having definite income. The cases are quite distinguishable, because the case in hand relates to the amputation of the hand of a child aged 3 years.

We find that on principles the appellant deserves to be awarded compensation for the permanent disability, for pain and suffering and towards future treatment in accordance with the established principles of law. Though in the decision in Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. v. R. Swaminathan 2006 ACJ 1398, the Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 for permanent disability, Rs. 1,00,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,85,000 for future treatment, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the appellant should be awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards permanent disability, Rs. 70,000 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 30,000 for future treatment. We may also add that no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal for medical expenses on the ground that no evidence was adduced in that behalf. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that in the case of a severe injury, as sustained by the appellant, the appellant must have been taken to the hospital for medical treatment. There is oral evidence to the effect that he was treated at Primary Health Centre at Bagh, District Hospital, Barwani and thereafter in the hospital at Baroda. Thus, without the evidence having been adduced it can be deduced from the circumstances that he must have, at least, spent Rs. 20,000 on medical treatment. We are, therefore, inclined to award a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards medical treatment notwithstanding that the same is not vouched by any document.

In the result this appeal partly succeeds. The compensation of Rs. 69,850 awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,20,000. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application. Out of the enhanced amount a sum of Rs. 60,000 with proportionate interest be paid to the father (next friend) of the claimant and the remaining amount be deposited in any of the nationalised bank till the period of attaining majority by the claimant.

There shall be no order as to costs.