The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs Sailla Thirupathi and Dasarapu Narayana

Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The appellant-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ''Corporation''), filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, ''Tribunal'') in M.V.O.P. No. 582 of 2002 dated 26.10.2004, awarding high compensation of Rs. 1,47,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty seven thousand only) as against the claim of the respondent of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only), in the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). Heard Smt. Dindi Radhika, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on 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 was erred in arriving wrong conclusion on the huge quantum of compensation awarded by not going through the facts properly with regard to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant, medical certificate to prove nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the doctor i.e. P.W.2 who is said to have treated the claimant is not actually the doctor who treated him. Hence, to allow the appeal.

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

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly abnormal and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so what amount 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 10.08.2001, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver (1st respondent in the claim petition by name Dasarapu Narayana) of the crime vehicle (A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-10Z-6714) belongs to the appellant''s Corporation, dashed to a road side tree, as a result, the claimant by name Sailla Tirupathi, s/o Mallaiah, aged 22 years, Agriculturist, r/o Kasulapalli, Karimnagar district, agriculturist by avocation, who was travelling in the crime bus sustained grievous injuries i.e. 1) laceration of chin 2) laceration of upper lip 3) broken teeth in upper jaw A) fracture of maxillary segment 5) fracture of nasal bone and 6) multiple fracture involving the facial bone and simple injuries all over the body (as per Ex.A.5 medical certificate), which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 14 of 2002 under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. After considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, believing the occurrence, nature of injuries, medical expenses for treatment, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings and transport charges and other aspects, awarded in all compensation of Rs. 1,47,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty seven thousand only) out of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the appellant and 2nd respondent herein.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the grounds of the appeal that the compensation awarded is unjust, unreasonable and the Tribunal is erred in awarding such a huge amount though it was supposed to award just compensation by taking consideration of nature of injuries and medical expenses incurred for the nature of treatment and also loss of earning properly, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the false evidence of the claimant, and to set aside the Award of the Tribunal. Whereas it is the contention of the appeal 1st respondent-claimant that, the compensation awarded is just and hence to dismiss the appeal saying no grounds to interfere.

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 LORD v. in 555 All.E.R (1) 1969 Cleaver, Parry Morris>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, 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 and coming to the factual matrix, as per Exs.A.3 accident information report, Ex.A.1 First Information Report, A.4 discharge ticket, A.6 referral slip issued by A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad and Ex.A.7 out-patient ticket, as observed by the Tribunal at para-12 of page-5 of the Award, there are four grievous injuries sustained by the injured-claimant viz., 1) laceration to chin 2) laceration to upper lip 3) broken teeth (incessor) in upper jaw and 4) fracture of nasal bone and fracture of maxillary medial segment and also multiple fractures involving the facial bones and as per evidence of P.W.2-doctor who treated the claimant and also the evidence of P.W.1-claimant, there is facial disfigurement (as per P.W.1), however, that is not supported by the evidence of P.W.2-doctor who examined though he was not the person who treated him earlier, if at all, there is any facial disfigurement, however, by taking into consideration of nature of injuries sustained and its severity, and from the expression of the Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, relied upon by the claimant-respondent to the appeal, the granting of compensation for personal injury to be compensated is for pain and sufferance, for loss of amenities, any threatened expectation of life, loss of future earning capacity, past earnings, medical expenses and treatment and the compensation to be awarded for the main ailments i.e. pecuniary loss and for the loss which he suffers as a result of the injury from the inability to lead a full life and enjoy those amenities as were and the inability to earn as governed. Having regard to the above and from the settled principle of law that the compensation awarded is just though there is no permanent disability as was rightly concluded even by the Tribunal in the factual matrix of the case for the four fractured injuries even taken at Rs. 20,000/- each comes to Rs. 80,000/-, for pain and sufferance of Rs. 10,000/-, for medical expenses and treatment for the injuries sustained by the claimant under Ex.A.8 bills of Rs. 20,000/-, transport and attendant charges during treatment of Rs. 5000/-, loss of amenities and extra-nourishment of Rs. 10,000/-, for loss of earnings of Rs. 5,000/- it all comes to Rs. 1,30,000/-. Coming to the rate of interest, from the settled proposition of law in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, , Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , interest is awarded at 7 1/2% per annum by modifying and reducing from 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.

POINT -2:

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing the compensation amount of Rs. 1,47,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) with interest at 7 1/2% per annum from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with notice. The respondent is directed to deposit said amount with interest within one month from today, failing which the claimants 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.