* THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO + M.A.C.M.A.No.114 of 2011 %Dated 20.01.2014 #Between:
G.L.Anil.
And G. Narsingh Rao and another .. Appellant .. Respondents ! Counsel for the appellant: Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy.
^ Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri S. Venkateswarlu.
<GIST >HEAD NOTE:
[1] 2013 AAC 2415
2 1965(1) A11. E.R-563
3 1963(2) All.E.R-432
4 1969(1)A11.E.R –555
5 1995 ACJ 366(SC)-CA Nos.1799 &1800 of 1989 with SLP(Civil)
4586 of 1989
6 2013(1) ALD 68 (SC)
7 2011 ACJ 1
8 (2005) 6 SCC 236
9 2013(4)ALT 35(SC)
10 (2005) 6 SCC 236
11 2013(4)ALT 35(SC)
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.114 of 2011 JUDGMENT The injured-claimant, who filed the claim petition against respondents 1 and 2-owner and insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 29 T 5557 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the accident dated 14.07.2008, having been aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal dated 10.08.2010 in O.P.No.2076 of 2008 awarding compensation of Rs.85,000/-with interest at 7% per annum, filed the appeal impugning the same with the contentions that the learned Tribunal went wrong in not applying the multiplier method by considering the earnings of the claimant despite there is a disability sustained by him from the age, avocation and earnings also and the Doctor-P.W.2 also deposed in this regard besides P.W.1, and that thereby allow the appeal awarding compensation as prayed for in the claim petition so also by enhancing the rate of interest.
2. Heard Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
3. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in S. MANICKAM v. METROPOLITAN
[1]
TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED . Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent- insurer that the award of the Tribunal is reasoned one and well considered, and for this Court while sitting in appeal, there is nothing to interfere either with the rate of interest or the quantum, more particularly, from the fact that the so called disability certificate-Ex.A8 is not admittedly given for medico legal purpose, but for some social purpose, and P.W.2-doctor as well as P.W.1 admitted that the working ability of injured- P.W.1 is no way effected by the injuries and he was discharged in a fit condition and thereby, there is no disability and the question of considering much less any multiplier method does not arise . Hence, to dismiss the appeal.
4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is utterly low and requires interference to enhance by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so for what compensation and with what rate of interest?
2. To what result?
POINT-1:
5. The fact that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle of the first respondent insured with the second respondent in which the claimant sustained injuries referred in Ex.A3-wound certificate and Ex.A8- disability certificate, is not in dispute and the same is proved not only from the evidence of P.W.1 but also from the contents of Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-charge sheet in corroboration to it.
6. 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.
[2]
James , 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
[3]
Credit v. Tolly remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in
[4]
Parry v. Cleaver 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)
[5]
Private Limited 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.
7. From the above legal position with reference to the factual matrix of the case on hand, the Tribunal in its finding after elaborate discussion has came to the conclusion that the accident is the out come of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM van bearing No.AP 29T 5557 insured with second respondent of the claim petition.
8. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, in the decision relied on by the appellant 1st supra, it was observed that the determination of compensation be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales and the adjudicating authority while determining the quantum has to take note of the sufferings of the injured, which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Compensation under the head permanent disability cannot be deviated on the ground that substantial amount has been fixed under the head loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity. In fact, the Apex Court in SUBULAXMI v. M.D. TAMIL NADU [6] STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION following the earlier [7] expression in RAJ KUMAR v. AJAY KUMAR observed that even there is no loss of earning from the injury suffered when it effects the normalcy of life as was prior to the accident, after the accident from the injuries though it is not the multiplier method but for at least a fixed sum to compensate has to be awarded. It was also observed, merely because a disability certificate is issued, it cannot be taken the disability without appreciation as to the percentage of disability mentioned and avocation and it is relating to whole body there from or to a particular limb to assess what is the actual disability on the loss of earnings, if any, or in normalcy of life.
9. Having regard to the above principles, here coming to the factual matrix, P.W.1, the injured himself in his evidence deposed that he was discharged after operation to the fractures of left radius and right ulna of both arms besides head injury and he was in a fit condition by the date of discharge and the Doctor-P.W.2 deposed that Ex.A8-certificate was issued for non-judicial purpose only and not for medico legal purpose and the injury suffered from the fractures operated to P.W.1 there is no disability, which effects on the working ability of P.W.1 for consideration. It is there from, the Tribunal awarded a fixed sum of Rs.40,000/-from the fracture injuries besides pain and sufferance for the injuries including the head injury an amount of Rs.5,000/-in all apart from loss of earnings Rs.15,000/-and medical expenses Rs.20,000/-. Even now, the petitioner, but for citing the expression of the Apex Court first supra, could not say there is any loss of earnings or any physical impairment suffering by him. Having regard to the same, the question of applying any multiplier method by taking permanent disability from the injuries suffered to the radius of left arm and ulna of right arm operated since gained normalcy does not arise, but for to award the lump sum. There from coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in lump sum is sustainable or not concerned, for the medical expenses and the treatment, the Tribunal since awarded Rs.20,000/- including medical bills since operated and requires another operation for removal of implants, there is nothing to interfere so also regarding loss of earnings from his claim of Rs.6,000/-per month as Supervisor of the printing press by assessing equally three months period after the accident from the fractures to gain normalcy in awarding Rs.15,000/-. Coming to the quantum of compensation for the two single fractures to the left and right fore arm, originally Rs.40,000/-awarded by the Tribunal no way requires interference but for including for pain and sufferance of Rs.5,000/-. However, coming to the other injuries concerned, as per the evidence on record, from the medical certificate, besides the right and left arm injuries, there is a punctured wound and there are head injuries on right side of fore head and the injuries described as grievous. Having regard to the above, an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- for the head injury is reasonable to award. In addition to that, the claimant is entitled to transport charges of Rs.2,000/- and attendant charges of Rs.6,000/-, which comes to Rs.1,03,000/- by enhancing the rate of interest from 7% to 7 ½ % per annum following the expression in TN Transport Corporation
[8] [ 9 ]
v. Raja Priya ; and Rajesh v. Ranabir Singh . Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.
Point No.2:
10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.85,000/- with Rs.1,03,000/-(Rupees one lakh three thousand only) by enhancing the rate of interest from 7% to 7½% per annum following the expression in TN Transport
[10]
Corporation v. Raja Priya
[ 1 1 ]
; and Rajesh v. Ranabir Singh from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with notice. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who 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.
20th January, 2014 sj
[1]
2013 AAC 2415
[2]
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
[3]
[ 4]
1965(1) A11. E.R-563
1963(2) All.E.R-432
1969(1)A11.E.R –555
[5]
1995 ACJ 366(SC)-CA Nos.1799 &1800 of 1989 with SLP(Civil) 4586 of 1989
[6]
2013(1) ALD 68 (SC)
[7]
2011 ACJ 1
[8]
(2005) 6 SCC 236
[9]
2013(4)ALT 35(SC)
[10]
[11]
(2005) 6 SCC 236
2013(4)ALT 35(SC)