In a road accident that took place on 06.03.2002 on Villupuram to Cuddalore road near Maharajapuram Puthumariyamman Koil, East Pondy road, two buses collided in which the staff of one of the bus suffered injuries to his leg for which he approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Respondents 3 and 4 are the owner and the insurer of the bus of which the claimant was a staff. Respondents 1 and 2 respectively are the owner and the insurer of the alleged offending bus. In a case where the claimant was hospitalised for a total period of about 11 months and have underwent as many as 18 surgeries, the Tribunal has granted an award for Rs.1,70,000/- payable with interest at 7.5% per annum. The entire liability was mulcted on the owner and insurer of the offending bus. Challenging the inadequacy of the quantum, the claimant has approached this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant, a young man of 26 years at the relevant time and was working as a ticket checking staff of the bus belonging to the third respondent, was forced to suffer injuries, due to which not just his ability for mobility but literally every possible source of eking his livelihood was lost to him. He suffered fracture of left femur and there is an amputation of right leg below the knee and his muscle and other tissues are literally smashed that he cannot walk without assistance and that both his legs look so awkward that they do not provide a pleasant sight. P.W.2, the doctor who examined him speaks to these facts and has assessed his permanent disability at 80%. The remaining 20% might have been left out because the upper limbs have not suffered any injuries but unless there is mobility, where is the question of earning something with the upper limbs, argued the counsel. The Tribunal however and perhaps too mechanically discounted the percentage of disability at 50% and awarded compensation for permanent disability at Rs.1,000/- per every percentage of disability. For pain and suffering, it has granted Rs.40,000/-, for transportation, extra nourishment, damages to articles and medical expenses it has granted Rs.30,500/-. However nothing was awarded for assistance and future medical expenses.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the doctor who examined the claimant and assessed his permanent disability at 80%, had examined him some seven years after the accident and it is not known if the consequences that he had occasioned to witness was the direct result of the accident that the victim had encountered. In plain terms the suggestion here was the consequences of permanent disability that the claimant experience might have been due to some intervening causes.
4. The argument suspecting the extent of suffering that the claimant undergoes is not due to the accident involved in this case, something the insurance company has ingeniously attempted, though looks plausible but definitely not convincing. Where is the evidence for such wild conjectures?
5. Turning to the medical evidence as to permanent disability suffered by the claimant, it makes a painful reading and it is reproduced in the very words of the doctor :
" ehd; Kjy; kDjhuh; Re;jh; vd;gtiu 28/11/2009 md;W nehpYk; Ez;fjph; glk; vLj;Jk; tpgj;J gjpntl;L efy; kw;Wk; rpfpr;ir bgw;w Fwpg;g[fis bfhz;L ghh;itapl;ljpy; mtUf;F ,lJ fhypy; KH';fhYf;F nkny ,Ue;J njhs; rij kw;Wk; rijfs; vYk;g[ tiuf;Fk; ghjpf;Fk;goahd kpft[k; bfhLikahd bfhL';fhak; Vw;gl;L mjw;fhf mWit rpfpr;ir nkw;bfhz;lJ bjhpa te;Js;sJ kw;Wk; mtUf;F tyJ bjhil gFjpapy; ,nj khjphp xU fhak; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ KH';fhYf;F fPnH vYk;g[ Kwpt[k; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ ,lJ fhy; fhak;gl;l ,lj;jpy; ,Ue;J kpft[k; tpfhuj; jd;ika[lDk; kl';fpa thf;fpYk; ,Uf;fpwJ/ ,lJ ghjj;jpy; g[z; ,d;Dk; Mwhky; rPH; ,d;Dk; tHpe;J bfhz;Ls;sJ/ ,lJ fhy; tyJ fhiy tpl Rkhh; 10 br/kP/ tiu ePsk; Fiwe;jpUf;fpwJ/ mth; CDnfhy; Jiza[ld; jhd; elf;fpwhh;/ ,lJ fhypy; kDjhuUf;F ve;j xU cgnahfKk; ,y;iy/ tyJ bjhil gFjp ghh;g;gjw;F tpfhu jd;ika[ld; fhzg;gLfpwJ/ KH';fhy; K:l;L mirt[fs; ghjpg;g[ mile;Js;sJ/ nkw;fz;l Cd';fSf;fhf 80# Cdk; ,Ug;gjhf rhd;W mspf;fpd;nwd;/** A brief translation of the above extract of PW.2's chief examination is that the claimant's injury to his left leg was skin to bone deep and he has suffered fractures to both the legs, that so far as his left leg is concerned it looked slightly twisted and the injury presented an ugly look that the wound in the left foot has not healed. In the context of determining the compensation for permanent disability, he had said that his left leg has shortened by 10 cms. compared to right leg and that he cannot walk without a walking stick. This in short is the plight that visited the claimant on an unexpected hour when he had just stepped into the matrimonial life.
6. Prima facie the Tribunal appeared to have approached the issue before it without inadequate insensitivity that it shakes the conscience of the right thinking. Here is a case of a victim of a road accident who had literally lost his power of mobility at the prime of his youth when he ought to be working hard and earning and lifting the standard of his life was ultimately granted a mere Rs.50,000/- for the injuries he had suffered. It is a mystery why the Tribunal subsidized the percentage of disability from 80% to 50% and it is even more mysterious as to why it did not apply the multiplier method for the percentage of disability that it has determined. This injustice necessarily need to be addressed here.
7. Taking the nature of injury, I reckon the permanent disability which the victim of the accident suffered as one of functional disability and I determine it at 80%. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- and is retained. Applying a multiplier of 17, the amount awarded on this head is enhanced to Rs.7,34,400/- (4500 x 12 x 17 x 80%). I further enhance the amount awarded by the tribunal on the head of pain and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/-. On the head of assistance and future medical expenses since nothing was awarded by the Tribunal, on these heads Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- is awarded. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads is confirmed. The compensation as reworked now is as below :
Heads Amount enhanced (Rs.) Loss of future earning capacity 7,34,400 Pain and suffering 1,00,000 For assistance 10,000 For future medical expenses 25,000 For transportation, extra nourishment, damages to articles and for medical treatment 30,500 Total :
8,99,900 (rounded to Rs.9,00,000/-)
7. To conclude, this appeal is allowed and accordingly the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/- and the respondents 1 and 2 (owner & insurer of the offending bus) are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with the interest as fixed by the Tribunal, less if any amount already deposited, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same forthwith. No costs. The claimant is directed to pay the necessary court fee for the enhanced portion.
09.02.2017 ds To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court No.II, Villupuram.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
ds CMA.No.638 of 2013 09.02.2017