HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.115
OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The injured-claimant filed this appeal, having been
aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal–cum–III Additional District Judge,(Fast Track Court) Nizamabad,
(for short, ‘Tribunal’) in
M.V.O.P.No.632 of 2001 dated 29.04.2006, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees
thirty thousand only) as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh
only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2.
Heard Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.Kasim
Saheb, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-owner of crime jeep bearing
No.AP-25-T-3412, Sri A.V.K.Prasad, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd
respondent-Insurer of crime vehicle and the 1st respondent-original
owner of the jeep in the appeal even shown in the array but not pressed the
claim against him. Perused the material on record and the parties hereinafter are
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the
appeal.
3. 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 meager amount instead of awarding as claimed
and prayed for from nature of the injuries proved sustained, period of
treatment undergone, pain and sufferance, amount incurred, disability suffered
and loss of earnings so also the rate of interest at 7.5% p.a. Hence to allow
the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.
4. The
2nd and 3rd respondents of the appeal the Insurer and
owner through their respective counsel contended that for this Court while
sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere with the quantum of
compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded for the fracture of both bones of left leg
as well as for the other simple injury on forehead and with other aspects also.
Hence, to dismiss the appeal so also regarding rate of interest if all to
reduce to 6%p.a.
5).Now
the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is not just and utterly low 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?
2. To what result?
POINT-1:
6. The
facts of the case are that on 15.01.2001 the claimant was going on foot from
Bodhan, Nizamabad towards Mallapalli and at 8.30 p.m, when he reached at
N.B.Complex, Nizamabad, a jeep bearing No.AP-25-T-3412 belongs to the 3rd
respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex.B.1 policy,
driven by its driver at high speed in rash and negligent manner dashed against
the claimant, due to which the claimant fell down, the front wheel of the jeep
ran over him, as a result the claimant sustained injuries i.e. fracture to both
bones of left leg, and lacerated injury to the forehead 3x2 cms (as per Ex.A.3
wound certificate), which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information
Report and Ex.A.2 charge sheet. The Tribunal basing on the oral and documentary
evidence on record, awarded in all compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at
7.5%p.a. against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally.
7.
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[1],
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[2]
remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it
is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver[3]
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
v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited[4]
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.
8.The
fact that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the crime jeep originally belongs to 1st respondent transferred to
the 3rd respondent insured with the 2nd
respondent-Insurer proved from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with
Exs.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.2 chargesheet is not in dispute and no way requires
interference by this Court.
9.
From the above legal position, coming to the factual matrix, as per the Ex.A.3
wound certificate issued by P.W.2 of Government Hospital, Nizamabad, the
claimant sustained fracture on both bones of left leg and also another
lacerated injury to the forehead of 2x 3 cms., and he was admitted on
15.01.2001 and treated as in-patient till 17.01.2001 for the three days and
Ex.A.4 discharge summery also speaks the same besides Ex.A.6 X-ray film and A.7
case sheet. P.W.2 doctor of Government Hospital who treated him also deposed in
proof of the same however, there is nothing from the said evidence on record
that the claimant suffered any permanent disability much less any partial permanent disability. Having regard to the
above for the fracture of both bones of left leg, an amount of Rs.25,000/-,for
the lacerated injury over the forehead,
an amount of Rs.5,000/-, for medical expenses even the treatment is in Government
hospital, extra nourishment, transport charges and attendant charges even not
taken any loss of earnings from his age about 16 years, an amount of
Rs.12,000/-, which all comes to Rs.42,000/- is just so to award with interest
at 7.5% p.a. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.30,000/- is enhanced to Rs.42,000/-
without modifying the rate of interest at 7½ % p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly,
Point-1 for consideration is answered.
POINT -2:
10. 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.30,000/- to Rs.42,000/-(Rupees forty
two thousand only) with interest at 7½% per annum from date of the claim
petition till realization/deposit with notice. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who
are 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.
________________________
Dr. B. SIVA
SANKARA RĀO, J
Date:
12.02-2014
VVR
