HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.108
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–I Additional District Judge, Naglonda, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.P.No.210 of 2003
dated 14.09.2006, awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees 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 166 read with
140 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for
short, ‘the Act’).
2.
Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.S.Bhaskar
Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and the 1st respondent having been
remained ex parte before the tribunal did not choose to put forth his
appearance, hence taken as heard 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 during course of arguments in
nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of
evidence and probabilities of the case, that the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal is unjust and utterly low and the tribunal failed to
see that the claimant sustained fracture of mandible, left 6th teeth
broken and fallen away, cut injury to left pointing finger, grievous injury on
right cheek and back side of head and the tribunal also not properly considered
the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, sought for allowing the appeal by awarding just
compensation as prayed for.
4. Counsel
for the 2nd respondent-Insurer contended that for this Court while
sitting in appeal for the two injuries taken free treatment in the Government
Hospital, there is nothing to interfere with the finding of the tribunal in
awarding just compensation. Hence, to dismiss the appeal.
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 17.11.2002 at about 8.30 a.m., near the outskirts
of Bondugula village due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
auto bearing No.AP24 U 8952 belongs to the 1st respondent-owner
insured with the 2nd respondent-insurer covered by Ex.B.3 policy, it
turtled as a result the claimant by name Pottabathini Anand travelling in said
auto (including others) sustained injuries i.e. 1)fracture of mandible 2) left 6th
teeth broken and fallen away 3) left pointing finger cut injury, 4)grievous
injury on right cheek and 5) grievous injury on back side of head, 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.5,000/-with interest at 7.5%p.a. against the respondents
1 and 2 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 vehicle belongs to 1st respondent insured with the 2nd
respondent covered by Ex.B.3 policy not in dispute. Even as per Ex.B.1 there
was learner’s license. The tribunal in fact held that the learner’s license is
valid and there is nothing to exonerate the Insurer from liability. Even as per the apex Court expression in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran
Singh & Others[5] learner’s licnece is
valid licence but for from the Act to say some assistance or guidance to be
taken while driving. There is nothing to say the auto driver not taken any assistance or guidance. However,
the auto is a transport light motor vehicle and the learner’s license is for a
non-transport light motor vehicle to say that there is a violation of the
policy. However, there is nothing to say that the crime auto was allowed by the
owner with conscious knowledge intentionally to drive the vehicle by a person
without valid licence to exonerate the Insurer, that too, from the settled
expression in Swaran Singh (supra). The Tribunal exercised its
discretion and awarded the quantum of compensation which is a very small amount
for the two simple injuries concerned, it is not a fit case even to pay and
recovery much less by interfering with the discretionary power of the tribunal
under Section 149 read with 169 with joint liability fixed.
9.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, as per Ex.A.3 wound certificate, there
are two injures sustained by the claimant and Ex.A.4 discharge card of the Gandhi
hospital with reference to x-ray shows there was no any bony injury but for the
injuries even for the claim to say there was a fracture on mandible and 6th
teeth broken but he did not file any photo much less any medical certificate in
this Court even to consider. Having regard to the above, for the two simple
injuries an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2,000/- each) and for the transport
charges and medical expenses of Rs.2,000/- total of Rs.6,000/- is just to
enhance from Rs.5,000/- 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.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six
thousand only) with interest at 7½% per annum from date of the claim petition
till realization/deposit with notice. The Respondents, who are 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
