HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1708 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
The Claimants, parents of the deceased
by name Sri Manchala Srinivasulu, 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) Kadapa, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.179
of 2004 dated 12.08.2005, awarding compensation of Rs.1,96,500/-(Rupees one
lakh ninety six thousand five hundred only) as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees
three lakh only), against 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 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short,
‘the Act’).
2. Heard V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, the
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.Harinath Gupta, learned standing
counsel for the 2nd respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited
and the 1st respondent who remained ex parte before the
Tribunal did not put forth his appearance thus taken as heard the 1st
respondent for the absence to decide on merits and perused the 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 and 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 erred in
arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very
meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed since the claimants
lost their son on whose income they were depending for their livelihood, hence
to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.
4).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:
5.
The facts of the case are that, on 28.10.2003 at 6.00 P.M., the deceased
M.Sreenivasulu was riding his bicycle along with his friend M.Venkatesu as
pillion rider proceeding from Mariapuram to his house at Balajinagar and when
they reached near Sunnapubattilu in Akkayapalli, the pillion rider got down
from the cycle and the deceased proceeding on the left side of the road and at
that time the lorry bearing No.ABG 9855 belongs to the 1st
respondent insured with the 2nd respondent being driven by its
driver in rash and negligent manner dashed
against the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down and the lorry ran
over him due to which head was crushed and he died on the spot, which
occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 FIR and A.4 charge sheet and also proved from
Ex.A.3 Post mortem report and Ex.A.5 M.V.I. report. The Tribunal basing on the oral and documentary
evidence on record, awarded compensation in all of Rs.1,96,500/- with interest
at 7.5%p.a. against the in all 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. The appeal claim
herein is thus confined to the quantum from the contention of not correctly
taken the multiplicand and multiplier with future prospects in earnings and on
the quantum of consortium and funeral expenses etc., in arriving a sum for
awarding just compensation.
7.
The accident was rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry
belongs to 1st 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.4 charge sheet besides Ex.A.3 post mortem report and
Ex.A.5 M.V.I. report and from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not in dispute
and no way requires interference by this Court.
8.
From the above legal principles and in the factual matrix of case, the deceased
claimed as cooli being major Tribunal taken monthly earnings at Rs.2,000/- per
month as per date of accident 28.10.2003. As contended by the counsel for the 2nd
respondent-Insurer that what was the income of the deceased estimated by the
Tribunal is quite reasonable, and there
is nothing to interfere with said finding of the Tribunal by this Court while
sitting in appeal. As per the expression of Apex Court
POINT -2:
9.
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.1,96,500/- is enhanced
to Rs.2,35,000/- (Rupees two lakh thirty five thousand only) with interest at
7½% per annum from date of the claim petition till realization/deposit with
notice. 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 (after deduction of any amount paid so far
pursuant to the award of the Tribunal), failing which the claimants can execute
and recover. On such deposit or
execution and recovery, the Claimants are entitled 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
