Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 959 (AP)

Nalluri Kotaiah v. Abdul Gaffar

2013-11-04

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

body2013
Judgment : 1. The injured-claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No.956 of 1997 dated 07.07.2001, awarding compensation of Rs.1,19,914/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand nine hundred and fourteen only) as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only), 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 Sri M. Raja Malla Reddy, the learned counsel for appellant, Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, the learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited and Sri M. Rajender Reddy, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent-owner of the crime vehicle, 1st respondent-driver, who was served with notice called absent with no representation. Taken as heard the 1st respondent for his 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 in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal was erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from the nature of he injuries proved sustained, pain and sufferance there from and treatment undergone, amount incurred for the same and 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 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 as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 12.08.1997 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing no. 2. To what result? POINT-1: 5. The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 12.08.1997 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing no. AP 20 T 1890) belongs to the 2nd respondent insured with the 3rd respondent covered by Ex.B.1 policy, dashed the claimant by name Nalluri Kotaiah s/o Venkaiah, aged 44 years, Agriculturist by avocation while he was proceeding on foot, as a result he sustained multiple injuries all over the body and crush injury on left leg up to thigh from toe that resulted in amputation and the right leg was also crushed at ankle (as per Exs.A.3 and A.4 medical certificates), which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report in Cr.No.27 of 1997 under Section 338 IPC and Ex.A.2 charge sheet. As per the evidence of claimant P.W.1, he spent Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) for treatment and filed Exs.A11 to A.116 bunch of bills for Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). However, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, having found said injuries sustained by the P.W.1 described in Exs.A.3 and Ex.A.4 grievous in nature, and 80% permanent disability (as per Ex.A.119), simply awarded in all compensation of Rs.1,98,914 (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand nine hundred and fourteen only) against respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant in support of the grounds of the appeal that the compensation awarded is unjust, unreasonable and the Tribunal is erred in awarding such a meager amount though it was supposed to award just compensation by taking consideration of the nature of injuries i.e. the fracture and amputation of leg up to thigh referred in Ex.A.3 and A.4 proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 with reference to it and from Ex.A.11 to A.116 bills, its pain and sufferance, loss of earnings and for the treatment required and as believed permanent disability, to apply multiplier method of structured formula. The learned counsel for the Insurer supported the award of the Tribunal by saying there is nothing to interfere and enhance the quantum but for to reduce if at all. 7. The learned counsel for the Insurer supported the award of the Tribunal by saying there is nothing to interfere and enhance the quantum but for to reduce if at all. 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 (1965 (1) All E.R.563), 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 (1963 (2) All.E.R-432) remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver (1969 (1) All.E.R-555) 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 H.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Controll (India) Private Limited (1995 ACJ 366 (SC)) 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 probably expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required. 8. As the injury (facture of left leg and its amputation up to thigh) and crush injury on right ankle, are proved and taken note of by the Tribunal even in its award observations besides the amount incurred for medical expenses and treatment, this Court there from holds that the amount of Rs.1,98,914/- (Rupees one lakh ninety eight thousand nine hundred and fourteen only) awarded by learned Chairman of the Tribunal is in no way just compensation. 9. Having regard to the above, by taking consideration of the injury sustained by the claimant, the treatment undergone, pain and sufferance, expenditure incurred for treatment and for medical expenses. Coming to the quantum, the Tribunal taken into consideration the earnings of the claimant as on the date of accident at Rs.20,000/- per annum. This Court takes the same with proportionate increase of future prospective earnings at 30% therein as per the latest expression in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (4) ALT 35 (SC)) that comes to Rs,26,400/- and 80% permanent disability therefrom comes to 21,120/- p.a. x 15 multiplier applicable from the age of claimant below 40 years as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) = Rs.3,16,800/-. Further a sum of Rs.5,000/- for pain and sufferance + Rs.54,914/- medical expenses as taken by the Tribunal with reference to Exs.A.5 to A.116 as rightly arrived, it comes to Rs.3,76,714/- + Rs.3286/- towards attendant charges and transport charges during the period of treatment and in all comes to Rs.3,80,000/- total compensation is just and reasonable to award. Further a sum of Rs.5,000/- for pain and sufferance + Rs.54,914/- medical expenses as taken by the Tribunal with reference to Exs.A.5 to A.116 as rightly arrived, it comes to Rs.3,76,714/- + Rs.3286/- towards attendant charges and transport charges during the period of treatment and in all comes to Rs.3,80,000/- total compensation is just and reasonable to award. Coming to the rate of interest, though the interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal even not in dispute, from the settled proposition of law in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya ( (2005) 6 SCC 236 ) and Sarla Verma’s case (cited supra) and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh’s case (cited supra), interest is awarded at 7½% per annum by modifying and reducing from 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. 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.1,98,914/- to Rs.3,80,000/- (Rupees three lakh eighty thousand only) with interest at 7½% per annum from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with notice. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who alone are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit said amount with interest within one month from today, 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.