HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.192 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
The claimant / petitioner / injured filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amounts awarded as compensation.
2. The appellant / petitioner filed the claim petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the Motor accident on 07.01.2004.
3. The appellant / petitioner's case in brief is that on 07.01.2004 when he was travelling in an auto bearing Registration No.AP-25-U-6387 (the Auto) to Shetpally, and when the auto reached near Sub-Station of Lingampet, the driver drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control, as a result, the auto turned turtle and he received fracture of left forearm and other multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secundeerabad and underwent treatment by incurring expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the injuries resulted in permanent disability, and affected his earning capacity. Thus, filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads.
4. The Tribunal, after examining the material on record awarded Rs.41,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till NTR,J ::2:: macma_192_2015 date of realization by holding that the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the awarded compensation amounts, the appellant / petitioner filed the present Appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income and awarded meager amounts for 'Pain and Sufferings', medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of income during treatment, attendant charges, transportation and extra nourishment; and failed to consider the doctor's evidence about the necessity of future surgeries.
6. The respondent / insurer pleaded that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence placed on record and rightly awarded the compensation amount, and the grounds urged by the appellants / petitioners for enhancement has no basis, thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. The contentions of the appellant is giving rise the point for determination as, "whether the compensation awarded to appellant / petitioner is justifiable?".
8. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that compensation in personal injury cases are to be awarded under the heads of 'Pecuniary / Special Damages' and 'Non-Pecuniary / General Damages'. The assessment of pecuniary / special damages involve reimbursement of the bills from the evidence. Further, generally 1 (2011) 1 SCC 354 NTR,J ::3:: macma_192_2015 the compensation is awarded for medical expenditure, loss of earnings during treatment, and for pain and sufferings. In addition, where there is specific medical evidence for loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability and future medical expenditure, compensation will be granted under these heads.
9. In non-pecuniary damages, lumpsum is to be determined for damages under the heads of 'Pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life by considering the factors such as age, nature of injury, disability suffered by the claimant, and the effect thereof on the future life of the injured.
10. In the light of the above settled legal position, the case facts needs examination. The appellant / petitioner, as P.W.1, deposed about the injuries sustained in the accident and also got examined his treating Doctor, as PW.3, and placed Medical Certificate / Ex.A.3. This evidence is displaying that the appellant / petitioner sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm and three simple injuries.
11. Having regard to the fact that the appellant / petitioner suffered fractures of both bones of fore-arm and other simple injuries and the length of treatment granting Rs.40,000/- for 'Pain and Sufferings' is found appropriate.
12. With regard to medical expenditure, the appellant / petitioner deposed that he spent Rs.1,00,000/- for the treatment. But, no corresponding bills are filed. The Doctor at Gandhi Hospital, as PW.3, NTR,J ::4:: macma_192_2015 stated that the injured / petitioner was advised for the injuries suffered. But the doctors / PW.s 2 and 3 did not mention about the expenditure. There is no explanation forthcoming from the appellant / petitioner as to why the bills / receipts for the claimed medical expenditure are not filed. In absence of any tenable material proving the expenditure, and considering the possible incidental expenditure, granting Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses found reasonable. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal on this aspect is affirmed.
13. The appellant / petitioner, though contended that there is loss of earnings during the treatment, did not place any material. The Tribunal on considering the occupation of the appellant / petitioner as agriculturist, and by taking the period of treatment as two (02) months, granted Rs.5,000/-. However, having regard to the earnings of a daily wage labourer, agriculturists and for the occupation pleaded, the monthly income of Rs.3,500/- can safely be taken and for two months of loss of earnings granting Rs.7,000/- is found proper.
14. During the period of treatment, the necessity of attendants can be believed. Though a person was not specifically appointed, the family members should have extended their support by making out time from their avocations. Therefore, considering these aspects, Rs.7,000/- is granted under the head of 'attendant charges'.
15. Further, considering the treatment pleaded and the possibilities, Rs.5,000/- for transportation, and also Rs.5,000/- for 'extra nourishment' is awarded.
NTR,J
::5:: macma_192_2015
16. The appellant / petitioner pleaded that the disability is affecting his earning capacity, expenditure for further medical necessities and loss of amenities. But, no medical evidence is placed to establish physical disability and its consequent effect in the activities of his avocation, the future medical treatment and the impact of the disability on the usual course of life. Hence, this claim shall fail.
17. In effect, the following compensation amounts are awarded under the following heads, viz., :
(i) Pain and Suffering : Rs.40,000/-
(ii) Medical Expenses : Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Loss of income during
Treatment : Rs.7,000/-
(iv) Attendant charges : Rs.7,000/-
(v) Transportation : Rs.5,000/-
(vi) Extra Nourishment: Rs.5,000/-
=============
TOTAL : Rs.74,000/-
==============
18. In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed by awarding compensation of an amount of Rs.74,000/- to appellant / petitioner with interest @ 7.5% per month from the date of petition till the date of deposit and realization.
19. The respondents are jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation and they are directed to deposit the amount within one (01) month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
NTR,J
::6:: macma_192_2015
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 24.11.2021 Ndr