AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The injured claimant, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad at Bodhan (for short, ''Tribunal'') in O.P. No. 1709 of 2003 dated 13.08.2010, granting only Rs. 41,750/- (Rupees forty one thousand and seven hundred fifty only) for the injuries he sustained in the motor accident on 13.11.2003 against the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the owner of crime auto AP 25 U 3734 and its insurer filed the appeal; for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition u/s 166(i)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). Heard Sri Y.S. Yellanand Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. The 1st respondent owner of the crime auto refused to receive notice thereby taken as served and 2nd respondent insurer of the auto even served with notice failed to appear and thus taken as heard the respondents for the absence to decide on merits 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 awarding only a meager amount of Rs. 41,750/- and in not awarding any amount to the disability or for the multiple factures sustained by the claimant to the hands and legs as per the evidence of P.W. 2 as well as Ex. C1 case sheet, Ex-A3 medical certificate and thereby seeking to allow the appeal as in the claim petition prayed with interest.
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 13.11.2013, while the claimant along with others were proceeding in an auto bearing No. AP-25-U-3734 in order to go to Bodhan, when the auto reached at Akbarnagar crossing, the driver of said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which, the auto was turned turtle and the claimant and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries. The claimant sustained fracture of right knee patella, fracture of right shoulder clavicle, fracture of left elbow radial head, fracture of left leg fibula and multiple abrasions over forehead, laceration over left leg, injuries on head, chest, hands, legs and on other parts of the body (as per Ex. A3-medical certificate and Ex. A7-X-rays), which occurrence is covered by Ex. A1 -First Information Report in Crime No. 125 of 2013 u/s 337 and 338 IPC and Ex. A2-charge sheet. As per the evidence of the claimant-P.W. 1, he spent 1,00,000/- for treatment. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal, having found said injuries sustained by P.W. 1 described in Ex. A3 and A7 as grievous in nature, awarded in all compensation of Rs. 41,750/- (Rupees forty one thousand seven hundred and fifty only) out of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the respondents herein jointly and severally.
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) A11. 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) A11. 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) A11. 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 proposition coming to the factual matrix of the case on hand, the fact that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of Crime auto by the driver of the 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent, covered by Ex. B1 policy with reference to the evidence of P.W. 1, Ex. A1 FIR, Ex. A2 charge sheet that is proved and as rightly concluded by the Tribunal is not in dispute.
Now coming to the quantum of compensation impugned in the appeal concerned as per Ex. A3 wound certificate issued by P.W. 2-Dr. V. Akhilesh, Orthopedic Surgeon is based on the requisition received from the police addressed to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad. The claimant sustained fracture of right knee patella, fracture of right shoulder clavicle, fracture of left elbow radial head, fracture of left leg fibula which are all the four grievous and a simple non concessional head injury with multiple abrasions over forehead laceration over left leg. P.W. 2 also deposed with reference to the said injuries covered by Ex. A3 and Ex. A7 medical certificate and X-ray respectively. Ex. C-1 case sheet also speaks about said injuries and it shows that after the accident dated 13.11.2003 he was treated as inpatient for four days till 17.11.2003 and there is nothing to show from any of the fractures he was suffering from permanent disability.
Therefore, by taking into consideration of the said injures covered by Ex. C1, Ex. A3 and Ex. A7 with reference to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the fracture of right knee patella, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the fracture of right shoulder clavicle, Rs. 10,000/- for the fracture of left elbow radial head, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for fracture of left leg fibula, Rs. 10,000/- for pain and sufferance for all the injuries, Rs. 6,000/- for the multiple abrasions of forehead, Rs. 3,000/- for the simple laceration injury over the left leg, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- for transport charges, Rs. 3,000/- for attendant charges, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of earnings during the period of treatment and Rs. 6,000/- for medical expenses and treatment in all Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest rate 7 Vi% from the date of claim petition till the date of realization can be awarded as just compensation. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered.
POINT-2:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from 41,750/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- with 7 1/2% per annum from the date of petition till realization/deposit with notice. Respondents 1 and 2, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit said amount with interest within one month from today, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and rest of the amount be invest in Fixed Deposit in a nationalized Bank for three years. There is no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this MACMA shall stand closed.