S. Krishna Prabu vs J. Balaji and Another

R. Subbiah, J.—Being dissatisfied with the award dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, in M.C.O.P. No. 608 of 2002, claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Brief facts are as follows:

According to appellant, on 12.3.2001, while he was travelling in a van bearing registration No. TN 09-S 1950, owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2, from Trichy to Chennai from south to north, the said van was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed against the front portion of the government bus bearing registration No. TN 45-N 1344, which was coming from opposite direction and, thus, caused the accident in which the appellant had sustained multiple fracture injuries and severe cervical spine injury. On account of accident, appellant was suffering paralytic attack and he took treatment in six hospitals, namely, Government Hospital, Perambalur, Kaveri Medical Centre, Trichy, Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Chennai, Malar Hospital, Trichy, C.M.C., Vellore and Sea Horse Hospital, Trichy. Due to the injuries sustained by him, now he has totally become immobilised and he took treatment from 12.3.2001 to 3.12.2003. Appellant had lost his sense below neck. Hence, he made a claim for Rs. 65,50,000 as compensation against the owner as well as the insurer of the van.

Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Resisting the case, respondent No. 2 filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition.

In order to prove the claim, appellant examined himself as PW 1 besides examining two other witnesses as PWs 2 and 3 and marked Exhs. P1 to P19. On the side of insurance company, neither witness was examined nor document was marked. The Tribunal, after finding that the accident was caused due to the negligent act of the driver of van, by order dated 21.11.2007, quantified the compensation and passed an award for Rs. 22,57,520 and directed the insurance company to pay the same with interest. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by claimant.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that considering the nature of injuries and the nature of disability suffered by the victim, the total amount of Rs. 22,57,520 awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be an adequate compensation. Thus, he prayed for enhancement of compensation by way of reassessment.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 insurance company made his submission, supporting the award passed by the Tribunal.

Keeping the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, we have gone through the materials available on record and we find that in order to speak about the injuries sustained by the victim, one Dr. Vedamoorthy was examined as PW 3, through whom disability certificates were marked as Exhs. P12 and P19. PW 3 had stated in his evidence that on account of the accident, appellant had sustained fracture and dislocation in the spinal cord and consequently, spinal cord in the neck region got injured and he had lost sense below neck and is suffering from complete paralysis below neck. In the disability certificate marked as Exh. P19, it has been stated as follows:

He sustained fracture dislocation of 4th cervical vertebra with complete spinal cord compression of cervical area, which resulted in complete quadriplegia of all the four limbs.

The doctor had assessed disability as 90 per cent. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,89,606 towards permanent disability and the amounts awarded under other heads are as follows:

We find, out of compensation, that major amount was awarded towards medical expenses. As contended by appellant, the sum of Rs. 4,89,600 awarded under the head of permanent disability cannot be said to be an adequate compensation considering the nature of disability suffered by the victim. Therefore, we are of the view that appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation since he has to lead rest of his life only in a vegetative state.

By a perusal of award, it is seen that Rs. 4,500 has been taken as monthly income and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, Tribunal has arrived at Rs. 3,000 and by applying the multiplier of 17, has awarded Rs. 4,89,600 as loss of earning capacity. On a perusal of evidence of PW 3, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to fix disability at 100 per cent since appellant has to carry on his rest of life only through the help of others and he cannot do any work for his livelihood for the rest of his life. Similarly, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case, where deduction of 1/3rd amount has to be made towards personal expenses since the appellant has become totally immobilised. Therefore, by fixing disability at 100 per cent and by setting aside the deduction of 1/3rd amount, the compensation could be arrived at.

As fixed by the Tribunal, Rs. 4,500 is fixed as monthly income of appellant. So, the annual loss of income works out to Rs. 54,000. If we apply multiplier of 17, the total loss of income comes to Rs. 9,18,000 (Rs. 4,500 x 12 x 17 x 100/100) which is hereby awarded as just and proper compensation by fixing disability at 100 per cent.

Further, the evidence on record would show that appellant has been taking treatment as on date. In fact, appellant has produced medical bills subsequent to the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000 and odd and he prayed that said amount has to be granted. For which, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has vehemently opposed for granting any amount towards future medical expenses. However, we are of the opinion that the evidence on record would show that the appellant has to carry on his medical treatment throughout his life. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that some reasonable amount could be awarded as just and proper compensation under the head of ''future medical expenses''.

The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000 for future medical expenses. Taking into consideration the status of the appellant, the same is hereby enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000. The sum of Rs. 50,000 awarded by the Tribunal for future career, in our opinion, is not sustainable and as such, the same is set aside. Further, we find that the victim had undergone treatment for more than three years. Considering the long duration of treatment undergone by the victim, we are of the opinion that Rs. 50,000 awarded by the Tribunal under the head ''pain and suffering'' needs proper enhancement. Hence, the same is hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000. Considering the fact that respondent No. 1-claimant needs help of an attendant to carry on his normal avocation throughout his life, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is awarded under the head of ''future attendant charges''. Except this modification, the amounts awarded under the other heads are confirmed. Consequently, the sum of Rs. 22,57,520 awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 30,85,920 and the breakup details are hereunder:

We are of the opinion that appellant is entitled for interest for the said amount except Rs. 5,00,000 awarded under the heads of future medical expenses (Rs. 4,00,000) and future attendant charges (Rs. 1,00,000).

In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Insurance company, respondent No. 2, is directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs. 30,85,920 with interest at 7.5 per cent on Rs. 25,85,920 from the date of deposit before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.