Yeleti Yeshoda vs B. Sudhakar Raju

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The Claimant-injured, by name Smt. Y. Yashoda, filed this appeal having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, ''Tribunal'') in O.P. No. 237 of 200 dated 18.12.2006, awarding compensation of Rs. 1.82,142/-as against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 viz., the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle (lorry), 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 the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 and also the learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. 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 mainly are that the tribunal erred in not taking consideration of the earnings of claimant at Rs. 20,000/- per month from agriculture and also erred in grant of meager amounts for grievous injuries, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, transport charges, medical charges and attendant charges and thereby sought to enhance the compensation as claimed in the claim petition.

Where as it is the contention of the insurer of the crime lorry in opposing the claim that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is too high and is abnormal and for this Court while sitting in appeal, but for no cross-objections to reduce, there is nothing to interfere. Hence prayed to dismiss the appeal. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

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 07.07.2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing No. ADA 7689) belongs to the 1st respondent, insured with 2nd respondent, the crime vehicle hit the auto in which the claimant was traveling and as a result, the claimant sustained 1) two sutured wounds on the head, both frontal and parietal region measuring 5 to 7 cms 2) sutured wound on chin 3) x-ray pelvis revealed fracture of iliac bone involving sacro iliac, joint left with subluxation, 4) fracture of 6th and 7th ribs on left side 5) fracture of mandible 6) would just below the left knee joint and 7) Haemoperitonium present, (as per Ex.A.2 Medico legal record), which occurrence is covered by Ex.A. 1 First Information Report and Ex.A.3 charge sheet and proved with reference to it from evidence of PW1 as concluded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 at para 17 of the award that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal, from the evidence of P.W.1-claimant and P.W.2-Dr.E.Ravinder Reddy with reference to Ex.A.2 medical record, for the injuries sustained by the claimant awarded Rs. 1,10,000/-towards pain and suffering and further Rs. 20,000/- towards disability and Rs. 52,142/-towards medical expenses and treatment against the respondents, in all Rs. 1,82,142/-.

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, 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 under the heads pecuniary (special) and non-pecuniary (general) in case of death, for loss of dependency 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 on the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just or not concerned, the claim of the petitioner is that she was an agriculturist, but she could not file even a scrap of paper showing any land owned and possessed by her much less cultivating as a lessee, but for having the land in the name of her husband and father-in-law and their family covered by Exs.A7 and A8 Pattadar Passbooks. The tribunal there from not believed the claim of she is an agriculturist for not possessing any land either own or lease cultivation and thus any assistance by her to her husband and family members in their cultivation cannot be regarded as she is an agriculturist. It is therefore, from the earnings of the injured claimant as on the date of accident i.e., on 07.07.2002 can be assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month by following the expression in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, wherein the Apex Court observed that even a non-earning person and domestic contribution of house wife can be assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. As per the Supreme Court from Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, the multiplier applicable for persons aged between 26 and 30 years is ''17''. Thus, for the said 20% permanent disability, loss of earnings comes to Rs. 1,22,400/- ( Rs. 3,000/- X 12 X 17 X 20%). Apart from it, it is just and reasonable to award for the injuries and pain & suffering, additional sum of Rs. 30,000/-, and for loss of total earnings during the period of treatment taken for 1 1/2 months Rs. 4,500/- and for attendant charges to award Rs. 3,500/-. With regard to medical expenses and treatment, as the respondent-insurer rightly contended that most of the receipts are either repetition or some are fake, the tribunal came to a correct conclusion that the claimant is entitled for Rs. 52,000/-, against what contended by the claimant of she incurred Rs. 1,40,000/-. Thereby, there is nothing to increase the said amount towards medical expenses and treatment. Hence, in all the total sum arrived at comes to Rs. 2,13.542/- rounded to Rs. 2,13,500/-. Now coming to the rate of interest, in view of the settled proposition of law including from Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, and the latest expression in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , the interest awarded by the tribunal at 7 1/2 % per annum needs no interference. 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. 1,82,142/- to Rs. 2,13,500/- (Rupees Two lakhs Thirteen thousand Five hundred only) with interest at 7 1/2% per annum from date of the claim petition till realization/deposit with notice. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation are directed to deposit the said amount within one month with interest from the date of petition(after deduction of any amount paid so far pursuant to the award of the Tribunal), failing which the claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and the rest of the amount be invested in FD for three years in a nationalized bank. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.