HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1363
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 and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.716
of 2002 dated 31.01.2007, awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five
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 M.Rajamalla Reddy, the learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt. Shanthi Neelam, standing counsel for the Oriental Insurance
Company Limited and the 1st respondent (owner of the vehicle)
remained ex parte before the Tribunal not chosen to appear in this
appeal also, hence taken
as heard the 1st respondent for his 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.
3. The
contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as submissions during course of
hearing in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law,
weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal went wrong
in not awarding compensation as prayed for but only in granting utterly low in
ignorance of fracture to the right femur at the neck right ankle and other
injuries are sustained as can be seen from wound certificate and evidence of
the doctor T.Narsing Rao, Nizamabad. Whereas, the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent-Insurer contended that it is a false claim but for no cross-objections
there is nothing to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
4).Now
the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the award passed by the
Tribunal is not just and the compensation awarded is utterly low and requires
interference by this Court while sitting in appeal to set aside the same if so,
to what extent the claimant is entitled for compensation with what rate of
interest?
2. To what result?
POINT-1:
5. The
facts of the case are that on 31.02.2002 the claimant along with others was
traveling in the jeep bearing No.AP 25 T 3371 belongs to the 1st
respondent insured with the 3rd respondent, due to rash and negligent
driving of its driver at high speed, he lost control and as a result the jeep
turned turtle and all the inmates including herself fell down and sustained
injuries, 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
available on record, granted compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest at
7.5%p.a. against both the respondents.
6. 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.
7.
From the above legal position, coming to the factual matrix, the fact that the
accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
crime jeep bearing No.AP 25 T 3371 in which the injured among others were traveling
from the vehicle turned turtle besides proved from the evidence of P.W.1
injured as well as with reference to Exs.A.1 FIR and A.2 chargesheet not in
dispute for the purpose of the appeal to interfere with the said finding of the
Tribunal but for on the quantum.
8.
Now coming to the quantum of compensation is concerned, as per the Ex.A. FIR,
due to the driver’s rash and negligent driving, the jeep turned turtle and
thereby the informant including others sustained injuries and jeep driver also
sustained injuries. The claimant’s name
is Kore Laxmi to say shows one of the injured as per the Ex.A.1 FIR and it
refers they were admitted in the hospital at Nizambad. The police chargesheet also shows the claimant
is third witness as one of the injured in the accident. The police requisition
for medical examination is to the Government Headquarters hospital, Nizamabad
whereas the P.W.2 doctor T.Narsing Rao, who is not a Civil Surgeon as on the
date of accident dated 31.03.2002 issued certificate as if he is a Government
Civil Surgeon by using official stamp in showing the claimant sustained
fracture of neck of right femur and other grievous injury to the right
ankle. There is no reference of the x-ray
particulars for showing
x-ray of rib and ankle taken, if any. As P.W.2 he deposed that he examined the injured in his private clinic and issued Ex.A.3 wound certificate and in cross-examination deposed that she was treated by him only as out-patient in case of hip bone fracture and the patient could move and as on the date of his issuing the Ex.A.3 wound certificate, he was not in Government service and the requisition by police is to the Government Medical Officer but not to him and he affixed the stamp as if he is a Government doctor as on the date though not and he did not produce any other record to show that he treated the injured and denied the suggestion that she did not come to hospital and this is a false certificate issued by him as if she sustained fractures for the case purpose prima facie it shows he issued certificate by tampering seal of the Government hospital by pretending as if he is the Civil Surgeon though not Government doctor admittedly, to say it is nothing but ingenuine certificate and no credence can be given to the unworthy evidence even being doctor in profession. Thus, from Exs.A.1 and A.2 FIR and charge sheet shows victim sustained injuries in the jeep accident from its turned turtle, the two injuries described can be taken as grievous injuries for no X-ray showing so called fracture allegedly sustained to believe and that he examined as out-patient and not even taken any x-ray and stated about so called oral examination. Thus, for the two grievous injuries and for the medical expenses and treatment an amount of Rs.10,000/- in all is just so to award.
x-ray of rib and ankle taken, if any. As P.W.2 he deposed that he examined the injured in his private clinic and issued Ex.A.3 wound certificate and in cross-examination deposed that she was treated by him only as out-patient in case of hip bone fracture and the patient could move and as on the date of his issuing the Ex.A.3 wound certificate, he was not in Government service and the requisition by police is to the Government Medical Officer but not to him and he affixed the stamp as if he is a Government doctor as on the date though not and he did not produce any other record to show that he treated the injured and denied the suggestion that she did not come to hospital and this is a false certificate issued by him as if she sustained fractures for the case purpose prima facie it shows he issued certificate by tampering seal of the Government hospital by pretending as if he is the Civil Surgeon though not Government doctor admittedly, to say it is nothing but ingenuine certificate and no credence can be given to the unworthy evidence even being doctor in profession. Thus, from Exs.A.1 and A.2 FIR and charge sheet shows victim sustained injuries in the jeep accident from its turned turtle, the two injuries described can be taken as grievous injuries for no X-ray showing so called fracture allegedly sustained to believe and that he examined as out-patient and not even taken any x-ray and stated about so called oral examination. Thus, for the two grievous injuries and for the medical expenses and treatment an amount of Rs.10,000/- in all is just so to award.
9.
Coming to the rate of interest, the interest at 7.5%p.a. awarded by the
Tribunal is just from the settled proposition of law in TN Transport
Corporation v. Raja Priya[5], Sarla Verma v Delhi
Transport Corp[6]
and from the
latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Ranabir Singh[7], hence it requires no interference. 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.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten
thousand only) with interest at 7½% 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 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:
11-02-2014
VVR
Note:
L.R. copy to be marked. Yes/No
