Tadisetti Konda vs Meka Prakasa Reddy and Another

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The injured-claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Krishna district (for short, ''Tribunal'') in M.V.O.P. No. 206 of 2001 dated 25.11.2004, awarding compensation of Rs. 75,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). Heard Sri K. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant. Both the respondents i.e. 1st respondent-driver and the 2nd respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ''the Corporation'') are served but called absent with no representation. Taken as heard both the respondents for their absence to decide on merits and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meagre amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from nature of the injuries proved sustained, pain and sufferance there from, treatment undergone and amount incurred for the same and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.

Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?

To what result?

POINT-1:

The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 14.01.2000 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (Bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 1890) belongs to the 2nd respondent, same dashed against the Hero Honda Majestic Moped 5690 in which the claimant by name Sri Tadisetti Konda, aged 26 years, resident of D. No. 15/222, Edepalli village, Machilipatnam, municipal employee by avocation, was proceeding to his agricultural field, as a result the claimant fell down and sustained injuries (Ex. A.3 medical certificate), which occurrence is covered by Ex. A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 2 of 2000 u/sec. 338 IPC, and Ex. A.2 charge sheet. It is the finding of the Tribunal from the evidence of claimant-P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 doctor G.V. Prasad coupled with Exs. A.3 medical certificate, A.4 case sheet and A.5 x-ray, that he sustained 1) a lacerated injury 5" x 1" muscle deep over the lateral end of right eyebrow, 2) lacerated bleeding injury of 1" x 1 cm just below to right eye, and 3) pain and tenderness over right clavicle, and the injuries 1 and 3 are grievous and injury No. 2 is simple in nature. As per the claimant-P.W. 1''s evidence he was treated in the Government hospital for 15 days for the fracture on his neck bone and injury to his right eye and underwent three operations to his right eye and claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation, but not produced any bills. However, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, having found said injuries sustained by the P.W. 1 and described in Exs. A.3 to A.5, with finding of fracture to the right eye sustained and lost vision, awarded in all compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 severally and jointly and severally.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant in support of the grounds of appeal that the compensation awarded is unjust, unreasonable and the Tribunal is erred in awarding such a meagre amount though it was supposed to award just compensation by taking consideration of the nature of injuries referred in Ex. A.3 to A.5 and proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with reference to it and from nature of injuries including pain and sufferance, loss of vision, loss of earnings and for the treatment required, though not believed any permanent disability to apply multiplier method of structured formula and also that the rate of interest awarded is very low.

Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, it is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James 1965 (1) All. E.R. 563, it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly 1963 (2) All. E.R. 432 remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver 1969 (1) All. E.R. 555 observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, at paragraph No. 12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required.

From the above legal position, coming to the factual matrix, as per Ex. A.3 wound certificate there is a lacerated injury 5" x 1" muscle deep over the lateral end of right eyebrow, 2) lacerated bleeding injury of 1" x 1 cm just below to right eye, and 3) pain and tenderness over right clavicle, and a radiologist report with x-ray and injuries 1 and 3 described as grievous and injury No. 2 is simple in nature. The Ex. A.4 case sheet substantiates the same so also by the evidence of P.W. 2 doctor G.V. Prasad though he deposed that there is loss of vision 30% disability to the petitioner there is no proof regarding it much less any medical board certificate nor any observation of loss of vision in the Ex. A.4 case sheet -cum-discharge summery hereby, the Tribunal rightly not believed regarding the loss of vision from injury No. 1 to consider any quantum on nature of permanent disability to apply any multiplier method. However, the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is Rs. 40,000/- for the injury No. 1 and 3, Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 15,000/- for injury No. 3 and additional Rs. 5000/- towards pain and sufferance in all comes to Rs. 75,000/-.

As the quantum of compensation awarded for the said injuries is no way requires interference. For no amount awarded for the other simple injury No. 2, now awarded Rs. 3000/- and also an amount of Rs. 3000/- for loss of earnings during the period of treatment, thus enhance the quantum of compensation of Rs. 6000/- making it Rs. 81,000/- is arrived as just and reasonable. Coming to the rate of interest, interest at 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is low, as seen from the settled proposition of law in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, , Sarla Verma''s case (cited supra) and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh''s case (cited supra) interest is awarded at 7 1/2% per annum in the present case by modifying and enhancing the rate of interest from 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered. POINT -2:

Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 81,000/- (Rupees eighty one thousand only) with interest at 7 1/2% per annum from date of petition till realisation or deposit with notice. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation are directed to deposit within one month said amount with interest from the date of petition, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.