HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2773 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Asifabad made in O.P. No. 207 of 2008, dated 28.08.2012, the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The appellant, claimant, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 26.08.2007. According to the claimant, on 26.08.2007, while he was attending to coolie work on the offending tractor bearing No. AP 1M 6388, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, when the tractor reached the fields of of Appani Bhumaiah, at 8:30 a.m., the driver drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner and at high speed, as a result of which, the tractor turned turtle and 2 the claimant sustaned multiple injuries as the tractor fell on him. He was treated at several hospitals, including Chalmeda Ananda Rao, Institute of Medical Science, Bommakal, Karimnagar, where he was admitted as inpatient for 26 days. According to the claimant, he had to spent Rs.40,000/- towards treatment and medical expenditure, was earning Rs.100/- per day and sustained disability and incapaciated to attend any works. Therefore, he laid the claim for Rs.8.00 lakhs against the respondents under different heads towards compensation.
Before the Tribunal, the respondents contested the claim denying the averments made in the claim-petition. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the appellant had sustained grievous injuries in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.
Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower 3 side. It is further submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.2, the treating doctor, the claimant sustained contusion over left pubic region, fracture of left superior and inferior pubic rami, which is grievous in naure and that he was on bed rest for three months and on physical examination, he has estimated that the claimant has suffered 38% permanent disability, but the tribunal has not awarded any amounts towards permanent disability. It is also submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the appellant is also entitled to the future prospects at 40% and also Rs.1,00,000/- under the heads of loss of expectation of life and loss of amenities in life i.e., marriage prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the appellant may be taken into consideration reasonably and prayed to enhance the same.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has contended that since P.W.2 was a private doctor and as no certificate issued by the competent Medical Board was produced to susbtantiate that the 1 2017 ACJ 2700 4 claimant had sustianed 38% permanent disability, the tribunal has rightly rejected the claim for permanent disability. It is contended that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal on issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, considering the evidence of P.W.1, the claimant coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A.1, FIR copy, Ex.A.3, charge shet, has categorically observed that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and has answered the issue in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Further, the insurance company has not produced any evidence on record to show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident 5 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor.
In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries, the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another2 held as under:
"5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of 2 MACD 2011 (SC) 33 6 amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items
(iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(b)."
In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned case, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning, inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for disability caused due to the accident.
7
In order to establish his case, the appellant, claimant, examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2. A perusal of Ex.A2, injury certificate, discloses that the claimant has sustained contusion over left pubic region 4 x 4 cm and Ex.A.8, X-Ray flim, shows that there was fracture of left pubic bone. The evidence of P.W.2, doctor, is to the effect that the claimant has sustained fracture of left superior and inferior pubic bone, which is grievous in nature. It was also his evidence that the claimant was on bed rest for three months and that due to the injury, the claimant cannot squat, climb stairs without support and cannot atend manual work. He has estimated the claimant to have sustained 38% permanent disability. Admittedly, no disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board was produced by the claimant to susbtantiate his claim of disability. But the fact remains that the medical evidence i.e., Ex.A.2 and P.W.2, treating doctor, clinchingly establishes the fact that the claimant has sustained certain disability due to the fracture of left pubic bone. Considering the said evidence and taking into account the naure of injuries suffered by the claimant, this Court is inclined to estimate the disability sustained by the claimant at 20%. 8
Coming to the quantum of compensation, even according to the claimant, he was coolie and earning Rs.100/- per day, which was rightly accepted by the tribunal. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), considering the age of the claimant at 19 years, future prospects at 40% needs to be added to the established income of the claimant. Duly adding 40% to the monthly income of the claimant, the future monthly income of the claimant comes to Rs.4,200/- per month (Rs.3,000/- plus 40% thereof). Inasmuch as the claimant was 19 years at the time of the accident, duly applying multiplier '18', the total loss of earnings on account of his disability would be Rs.1,81,440/- (Rs.4,200 x 12 x 18 x 20/100). Admittedly, the appellant had taken treatment in various hospitals as inpatient. Therefore, the tribunal has rghtly awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, travelling and attendant charges; and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.2,16,440/-. 9
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.2,16,440/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Time to deposit the amount is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 26.10.2022 tsr