Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
D. Satyavathi vs S. Appa Rao And Ors. on 10 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1(1998)ACC478
JUDGMENT B.K. Somasekhara, J.
1. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ongole in O.P. No. 123/87 dated 23.7.1990 as to the adequacy of the compensation awarded to the appellant, who was the petitioner in the competition is challenged. The fourth respondent is the owner of the lorry AAN 2319 involved in the accident and the 3rd respondent is its insurer. Originally the claim petition was filed against respondents 1 and 2 as the owner and the insurer and it was dismissed.
2. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It was further held that the appellant sustained a crush injury to the left hand and that it was amputated upto the root of the shoulder and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 7,000/- for treatment and nourishment, Rs. 19,000/- for permanent disability, in all Rs. 34,000/- were awarded as against Rs. 70,000/- claimed. The liability to pay the compensation was made joint and several on the part of the owner and the insurer of the vehicle.
3. Mrs. Vijaya Bharathi, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that in a case where the appellant/minor girl lost a hand due to the crush injury as a result of the negligence of the driver of the lorry, the amount of compensation awarded is very low and it requires to be enhanced as claimed and even more.
4. Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, the learned Counsel for the insurer has contended that since the Tribunal has given adequate reasons in support of the findings and the amount of compensation, this Court may not interfere with the award.
5. It is in the evidence that the appellant sustained crush injury to the left hand, she was admitted to People's Nursing Home, Cumbum, her left hand was amputated upto the shoulder joint on the very day, that she was to undergo treatment further in the nursing home and thereafter she was shifted to Government Hospital, Giddalur the record of which also shows the amputation of the left hand upto the root. The Tribunal also held that the life of the appellant has become miserable and she lost the amenities and the prospectus in her future life and she being a minor girl, her life has become dark and she is unable to lead normal life. In regard to the findings of facts, there is no reason to hold to the contrary.
6. The Tribunal has not considered all the items of compensation to be awarded in a personal injury claim case. The items of compensation so determined are also not appropriate or sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It is settled that the compensation to be awarded should be just and reasonable and at the same time should not be a windfall. It is also settled that in a personal injury claim case the amount of compensation should be more than the death claim case. The learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly relied upon a recent pronouncement of this Court in V. Bhaskar Reddy v. Narendra Kumar 1996 (4) ALT 778, which has listed the normal items of compensation which should be considered in a personal injury claim case. In the opinion of this Court by adopting such a method, there will be systematic and scientific way of awarding compensation
7. The appellant was aged 7 years at the time of the accident and a girl too. When she was hit by a very heavy vehicle like a lorry and when she suffered such serious injury to the left hand, her experience of shock, trauma and pain due to such a situation could be explained only by her and not by others, but still any human being can understand such an experience. During the period of treatment also, particularly when her left hand was amputated, the experience of the appellant both before and after that need not be over emphasised. In spite of all modern medical advent in conducting operation or amputation by giving anaesthesia, the internal suffering leading to the brain to be suffered later cannot be forgotten. Particularly after knowing that a limb of the body has been severed, the shock to the young girl immediately and to think of the future cannot be estimated in terms of expressions. The loss of limb, like the left hand, affects not only the body but also the mind as a whole in addition to social disability. Particularly a girl of the age of 7years who has to grow faster and become a youthful human being and a woman to be exposed to the world in such a manner is bound to suffer very serious mental agony, desperation, disappointment, which may lead to anywhere. No substitution of a limb is equivalent to the loss of limb. She is bound to lose the normal amenities of life which need not be described in detail of day-to-day requirement and thereby the discomfort, dislocation and disappointment of the claimant for her future life in such a situation can be noted. Therefore, for shock, pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, Rs. 15,000/- should be awarded.
8. In regard to the injury and the disability we must look to the identical cases. There is a total loss of the left hand regarding which the disability is 100% insofar as the limb is concerned. We are deciding the general damages for loss of limb with permanent disability. The identical cases of amputation of arm available are, Orissa Co-op. Insurance Society Ltd. v. Rajan Kumar 1976 ACJ 21, Prem Devi v. Harbajan Singh 1984 ACJ 707, Kandaswami Pillai v. Chinnaswamy 1985 ACJ 232, which relate to the accidents dated 1971, 1976 and 1979 respectively. Broadly stated, the general damages were assessed for the accident of 1970 including the pain and the suffering ranging from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. In similar circumstances for amputation of the right hand of the accidents of such dates, similar amounts were awarded even going upto Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- in Sunil Kumar Ghosh v. Union of India 1983 ACJ 737, Orissa State Electricity Board v. Shashikanta Nayak 1978 ACJ 478, APSRTC v. Doddasomayajulu Sitaramamurthy 1983 ACJ 44, of the High Court, Pepsu Road Transport Company v. Qimat Rai Jain 1985 ACJ 16, and Abdul Zabbar v. Ram Swamp 1985 ACJ 594. Notwithstanding the different ages of the victims or the injured, the general damages for the loss of a limb as such varied from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. It is well known that the money loses its value as it also grows. One rupee becomes twice its value atleast once in five years by loss of money value. Therefore, the amounts of compensation awarded during 70s should raise by three times for the accidents of 90s. In other words, the general damages for permanent loss of full limb as in the present case should vary between Rs. 30,000/- minimum and Rs. 1,00,000/- and odd. In this case, it should be Rs. 40,000/-.
9. No bills are produced towards medical expenses. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,000/-. For any treatment incidental and medical expenses are inevitable. In the absence of documentary evidence, some reasonable sum should be awarded. In this case, it must be Rs. 5,000/-.
10. The appellant being a girl will shortly become a marriageable girl or a bride. Her deformity is bound to affect her prospectus of marriage. That being an item of compensation, Rs. 10,000/- should be awarded. The social disability is another item to be awarded and Rs. 5,000/- would suffice for that.
11. A girl aged 7 years is normally not expected to earn anything and particularly when there is prohibition of child labour although her service to the family cannot be under-estimated. It is proverbially and popularly stated that an young girl is a young woman and a young boy is a young boy. She assists her mother in various ways including maintenance of the house, cooking, attending the children and small shoppings. Any disability is bound to reduce the extent of assistance. After she grows up she has got the potential to earn and contribute to the family either in cash or in service. Thus, the loss of contribution can be said to Rs. 300/- per month or Rs. 3600/- per annum. Adopting the multiplier method as in case of death, loss of earning capacity with the multiplier of 16, it would be Rs. 57,600/-. The limbs being 1 /3rd of the body one limb would be 1 /6th of the body. One sixth of the above amount would be any loss that can be contributed as a human being can work and survive with the loss of one limb as other limbs are still intact. That would come to Rs. 9600/- and to round it off Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the loss of future income in the absence of any positive evidence of the earning and with the earning capacity as above, the potential income should be Rs. 10,000/-. No other item of compensation as above can be awarded in this case.
12. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to recover the compensation as follows:
1. Shock, pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life Rs. 15,000.00
2. Injury and disability Rs. 40,000.00
3. Medical expenses Rs. 5,000.00
4. Loss of prospectus of marriage Rs. 10,000.00
5. Social disability Rs. 5,000.00
6. Loss of earning capacity Rs. 10,000.00
----------------
Total Rs. 85,000.00
----------------
But the claim is restricted to Rs. 70,000/-. The law is certain that the Tribunal or the Court can award only so much of compensation claimed unless it is amended as held in Anand Kumar Jain v. Union of India 1986 ACJ 774. The Tribunal has obviously awarded less and inadequate compensation which requires to be enhanced.
13. The Appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is set aside and modified to the effect that the appellant/claimant shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation from the respondents with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. If any amount is paid/deposited, it shall be deducted. This shall be subject to deposit of the amount in any Nationalised Bank as per the directions of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 (2) SCC 176.