HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1430 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 30.11.2015, in M.V.O.P.No.141 of 2015, the claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The claimant, appellant herein, filed the O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident that occurred on 10.03.2015. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the claimant, along with her husband, was waiting for auto at Sangareddy new auto bus stand, the offending vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No. AP 23AD 7661, owned by respondent No. 1, who is also rider of the motorcycle and insured with respondent No. 2, came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was treated at Udai Omni Hospital, Hyderabad. According to her, she was 2 aged 55 years, doing Swagruha Home Foods business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she has lost her income. Therefore, she laid the claim for Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation against both the respondents.
Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No. 1 remaind ex parte, the respondent No. 2, Insurance Company, filed counter 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 caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.
Learned counsel for the appellant, claimant, has submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. It is further submitted that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries to left thigh, left leg knee joint and ankle and according to the evidence of P.W.2, open reduction and internal fixation with locking plates and bone grafting was done. Thus, the injury is grievous in nature and 3 though P.W.2, doctor who gave treatment to PW-1, has specifically deposed that the claimant has suffered 20% disability on account of the injury, the tribunal did not award any amount under the loss of income due to disability. It is further contended that the claimant had to undergo treatment as inpatient at Omni Hospital, Hyderabad and has incurred Rs.1,09,537/-, towards treatment as seen from Ex.A.8, discharge bill issued by Udai Omni Hospital, and incurred Rs.1,67,845/- towards medicines as seen from Ex.A.11, but however, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment and medicines. It is further contended that considering the length of treatment and the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the amounts granted by the tribunal towards injury, pain and suffering, transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment are meagre and need to be enhanced.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company submits that inasmuch as P.W.2/doctor, has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that he has not issued any disability certificate to the claimant, the tribunal has rightly rejected the claim made under disability. It is contended that although the 4 claimant has claimed altogether Rs.2,77,382/-under Rs.A.8 & Ex.A.11, discharge bill and medical bills respectively, as no person, either the billing manager or administrative staff, was examined to prove the same, the tribunal has rightly restricted the claim to Rs.1,00,000/- and the same needs no interference by this Court. It is lastly contended that considering the nature of injury, the tribunal has rightly awarded the amounts under the other heads such as pain & suffering, transportation etc. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.
A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its driver, considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider, respondent No. 1 and has answered the issue in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Further, neither the owner of the motorcycle nor the insurance company has produced any evidence to show that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, I see no 5 reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the respondent No. 1.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, in order to award compensation in case of personal injuries, the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another1 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, 1 MACD 2011 (SC) 33 6 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 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 light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned case, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of 7 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.
In order to establish his case, the appellant examined herself as PW.1 and the doctor as P.W.2. According to the evidence of P.W.2, the claimant had sustained comminuted fracture distal femur left thigh, which is grievous in nature, open reduction and internal fixation with locking plates and bone grafting was done on 12.03.2015. Although he deposed that he had estimated the disability at 20%, but admitted in the cross-examination that he did not issue any disability certificate to that effect. In such circumstances, the tribunal was right in rejecting the claim made by the claimant under the head of disability. However, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and considering the fact that the injury suffered by the claimant is grievous in nature and considering the length of treatment, this Court is inclined to enhance the amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- under the head of injury. Since the evidence of 8 P.W.2 reflects that the claimant has to take follow up treatment, the tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. However, considering the nature of injury, which is grievous in nature, this Court is inclined to enhance the amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. By way of Ex.A.13, transport bills, the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.20,300/-. However, without there being any contra evidence, the tribunal has restricted the same to Rs.10,000/- and therefore, under the head of transport expenses, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.20,300/-. The amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards extra nourishment and attendant charges is not interfered with.
There remains the amount granted by the tribunal under the head of treatment and medical bills. By way of examining P.W.2, coupled with Ex.A.8, discharge bill, the claimant has claimed that she had incurred Rs.1,09,537/- towards treatment at Udai Omni Hospital. So also, by producing Ex.A.11, bunch of medical bills, she has claimed a sum of Rs.1,67,845/- towards expenditure for purchase of medicines. Without there being any reason, the tribunal has restricted the said amount to Rs.1,00,000/- on the mere ground that the medical bill 9 submitted by the claimant is on higher side. When the claim in this regard is supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.8 & A.11, the tribunal is not justified in restricting the claim to Rs.1,0,000/- under the head of treatment and medicines. Therefore, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.2,77,382/- towards treatment and medicines.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that appellant is entitled the following amount under various heads.
Sl. Name of Head Awarded by Awarded by this
Tribunal Court
No. Rs. Rs.
1.
Pain and suffering 10,000/- 20,000/-
2.
Injuries 20,000/- 50,000/-
3.
Treatment & Medical 1,00,000/- 2,77,382/-
Bills
4.
Transportation 10,000/- 20,300/-
5.
Extra nourishment & 10,000/- 10,000/-
attendant charges
6.
Expenses for future 20,000/- 20,000/-
treatment
TOTAL 1,70,000/- 3,97,682/-
10
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.3,97,682/-. The enhanced amount 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 29.10.2022 tsr