Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Bhavirisetty Rama Prasad vs Punyakoti Govindaswamy And Another on 25 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995ACJ1091, AIR1995AP61, 1994(2)ALT325, AIR 1995 ANDHRA PRADESH 61, (1995) 1 TAC 250, (1995) 2 ACJ 1091, (1994) 2 ANDH LT 325, (1994) 2 LS 251
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant who was travelling on the pillion of a scooter was injured in an accident on 14-9-1986 at 10.30a.m. on Guntur-Ponnur Road as a result of hitting by a lorry bearing No. ADC 4599 from the back causing injuries to his collar bone, ribs and his knee cup had to be removed. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur, seeking damages of Rs. 51,000/- as follows:
Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering Rs. 6,000/- towards temporary total disability for six months with loss of income Rs. 25,000/- towards permanent disability to left femur and knee joint with loss of amenities of life.
2. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte in the Tribunal while the Insurance Company which insured the lorry opposed the claim contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and also disputing the amount claimed as excessive. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver and awarded compensation of Rs. 14,000/- as follows;
Rs. 2,000/- towards medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering and.
Rs. 7,000/- towards partial disability caused to the lower limb.
3. Against this award the claimant has preferred the present appeal while there is no appeal by the Insurance Company or the owner.
General Damages:
4. Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the appellant was a young man of 26 years at the time of accident. He suffered fracture of patella (knee cap), left collar bone and 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on the left side. As a result, he cannot walk swiftly nor can he fold his left knee. He cannot normally sit or squat and he cannot take to cycling. As per doctor's evidence, PW 3, one more operation may be required to remove the steel rod inserted in his left femur. As per Ex. XI, the appellant was admitted in Guntur Hospital on 14-9-1986 and was discharged on 28-10-1986 and as per Ex.A-7, he was subsequently admitted in St. Joseph's Hospital on 19-12-1986 and was discharged on 24-12-1986. In Islavath Nama v. S. A. Raheem, (1987) 2 Andh LT 378, this Court awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life in case of accident that took place in the year 1981 resulting in fracture of femur and shortening of leg. The consumer price index in the year 1981, as per the table given in P. Satyanarayana v. I. B. R. Prasad, (1978) 2 Andh LT 328, was 441 while in the year 1986 it was 661, i.e., it increased to 1 1/2 times. So taking into consideration the quantum of damages given in Islavath Kama's case (supra), I think Rs. 30,000/- will be reasonable amount towards compensation for pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life and amenities of life, in this case.
5. Coming next to the loss of future earnings, neither the pleadings nor the deposition is clear in this regard. It is not clear whether the amount of Rs. 25,000/- claimed towards permanent disability to left femur and knee joint with loss of amenities of life includes loss of future earnings. But the evidence was led regarding the probable income of the claimant. The judgment of the Tribunal also deals with it. So merely because the pleadings are not clear, I think it wilt be unjust to disallow any amount under this head. The claimant, as PW 2, stated that prior to accident he was doing cloth business of joint family and was getting Rs. 1,000/- per month and that prior to doing cloth business he worked as Kalasi in Railways and was earning Rs. 560/- per month. After the accident, he gave up cloth business. The evidence is silent as to the means of livelihood of the claimant after the accident. There is no evidence to show that he did cloth business and was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Tribunal is not correct in saying that the appellant was working as Kalasi in Raiways after the accident. However, on the facts of the case, as the appellant was earning Rs. 560/ - per month as Kalasi a few years earlier, his earning capacity before the accident can be estimated at Rs. 600/- per month. On the date of trial, the appellant was 28 years old. As per the Doctor, PW 3, the appellant sustained partial disability to the lower limb to the extent of 25 per cent. The percentage of medical disability is different from the percentage of disability from the point of view of earning capacity, as decided by me in C.M. A. No. 940 of 1991 dated 3-7-1993. In the instant case, the percentage of disability from the point of view of earning capacity can be fixed at 20 per cent. Thus the multiplicand will be 20% of Rs.7200/- which is equal to 1440. Regarding multiplier, it has been recently held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas, that taking multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased at the time of death will be reasonable and scientific method of assessing compensation instead of multiplying by the number of years the deceased would have probably lived and deducting some amount towards uncertainties of life. But the various multipliers to be taken corresponding to a particular age are not indicated in the judgment. A Division Bench of this Court in Nirmala Naravva v. Vilas Ramachandra Shangde, 1989 Ace CJ 715 : (AIR 1990 NOC 33) approved the judgment of single Judge (Justice Jagannatha Rao) in Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif (1987 (2) Andh LT 137) in prescribing Actuarial Table for fixing various multipliers depending on the age, i.e., multiplier decreasing as the age increases. Accordingly, 17.1 which is the multiplier corresponding to 28 years has to be applied. Rs.1,440/- multiplied by 17.1 is Rs.24,624/-which is the loss of future earnings. Though the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas (supra) observed in para 11 that "usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum", it has not laid down that in no case the multiplier should exceed 16 in awards to be given in our country.
6. Thus the total compensation for loss of future earnings and pain and suffering comes to Rs. 54,624/-. As the amount claimed is only Rs. 51,000/- the compensation is restricted to Rs. 51,000/ -. In view of this, I need not consider the compensation claimed towards past earnings, medical expenses, extra nourishment, etc. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable. The appellant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition as granted by the Tribunal.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.
8. Appeal allowed.