HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.154
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–IX Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.78 of 2003 dated 27.10.2006,
awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as
against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only), for enhancement of
compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the
Act’).
2.
Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Sathyanarayana
Murthy, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Andhra Pradesh Road Transport
Corporation (for short, ‘Corporation’) 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 in nutshell are that the award of the
Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case,
that the Tribunal awarded compensation is unjust and utterly low instead of as
prayed for from the disability of 10% spoken by the doctor in evidence with reference
to wound certificate thereby and sought for allowing he appeal by awarding just
compensation as prayed for.
4. The
respondent-Corporation contended that the compensation awarded is excessive and
there is no disability certificate from the Medical Board so as to the
disability. Hence, to dismiss the appeal by reducing compensation.
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 21.11.2002 at about 4.00 P.M. while the claimant
was going on his cycle on left side of the station in Guntur town from Railway
Station side towards Gunta ground side and when he reached near Naaz theatre he hit the
door of the stationed car and fell down and at that time the driver of the respondent
bus bearing No.AP 9Z 8024 drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the claimant from behind, as a result, the claimant received
injuries to his pelvis and right ribs which are grievous in nature (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.25,000/-with
interest at 7.5%p.a. against the respondent.
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 vehicle belongs to respondent-Corporation proved from the evidence
of P.W.1 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 and factual matrix, coming to the quantum of
compensation awarded of Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed under
Section 163-A of the MV Act, Ex.A.3 wound certificate with reference to
evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the claimant sustained fracture of pelvis besides
other injuries and the Tribunal after discussion of the same from paras-9 to 18
came to conclusion from evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with reference to Ex.A.3 wound
certificate and Ex.X.1 case sheet of Government General Hospital, Guntur believed
as the claimant sustained fracture to pelvis and 5 other simple injuries and
taken from what P.W.3 deposed from the disability of 5 to 10% and awarded of
lumsum amount of Rs.25,000/- in all. In fact even taken the permanent
disability of 5% from the restricted movements from the pelvis from malunion
from the age of the claimant of 19 years and the multiplier that is applicable
as per the Schedule of the Act is 16 and the earnings as on the date of
accident 21.11.2002 even taken at Rs.30,000/- p.a. as per the latest expression
in Kishan gopal Vs.Lala[5]
at 257 para-39 categorically held that from the increase in the cost of living
index, the non-earning members income of Rs.15,000/- specified in schedule of
Act under 163-A to be taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum, it comes to for 5%
disability of Rs.1500/- x 16(multiplier)= 24,000/- + an amount of Rs.5,000/-
for the grievous injury as per clause 4(a) of the schedule of the MV Act, and for
the 5 simple injuries Rs.7,500/-at Rs.1500/- each and for medical expenses, the
claimant is not entitled as he admitted that the vehicle owner incurred the
same in toto, then it in all comes to Rs.36,500/- rounded to Rs.37,000/- is
just to award by enhancing from Rs.25,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. 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.25,000/- to Rs.37,000/-(Rupees thirty
seven thousand only) with interest at 7½% per annum from date of the claim
petition till realization/deposit with notice. The Respondent, who is liable to
pay the compensation, is 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
