Karnataka High Court
Renoj Kuruvellasam vs Amrita Prithami on 28 March, 2024
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB
MFA No. 8396 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8396 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RENOJ KURUVELLASAM
S/O. SAM KURUVELLA KOCHEHUKLAYIL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 486, 2ND CROSS,
NEW BEL ROAD, DEVASANDRA,
CHIKKAMARENAHALLI, BANGAORE-560054.
...APPELLANT
(BY, SMT. MAMATHA D.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AMRITA PRITHAMI,
NO. 39, 3RD CROSS,
8TH MAIN ROAD, SBM COLONY,
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560054.
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL,
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
ICICI BANK TOWERS,
BANDRA, KURLA COMPLEX,
Digitally MUMBAI-400051.
signed by ...RESPONDENTS
SHAKAMBARI
Location:
HIGH COURT (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA FOR
OF
KARNATAKA SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE (SCCH-11) IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB
MFA No. 8396 of 2017
M.V.C NO. 5527/2007 DATED 04.05.2017 SO FAR IT RELATES TO
THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION TO ₹69,67,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
12% P.A. AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS
FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment passed in MVC No.5527/2007 by the I-Additional Small Cause Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short) dated 04.05.2017 urging various legal grounds and contentions seeking enhancement of compensation in the case of motor accident wherein the Tribunal has awarded compensation of a sum of `33,73,000/- under various heads with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of its realization.
2. The facts so made out by the petitioner in the claim petition in brief are as follows: -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 That, on 15.06.2007 at 12.00 noon, the petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-37/X- 3539 from M.S.Ramaiah College towards Mattikere in the direction of north to south. When he was so riding the motorcycle, a car bearing registration No.KA-04/MD-4613 driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life, in the direction of south to north tried to overtake another vehicle which was moving ahead of his car towards extreme left side and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle and thus caused the accident. It is further the case of the petitioner-claimant that, in the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital for treatment. He sustained i) D4-5 burst fracture with thecal compression, ii) fracture of transverse process of D12 and
iii) fracture of 5th and 6th right ribs. He underwent surgery on 20.06.2007. He had lost his sense below the waist and he is still under treatment at Vellore hospital. According to him, till filing of claim petition before the Tribunal, he had -4- NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 spent `40,000/- towards medicines and hospitalization, `10,000/- towards food and nourishment, `50,000/-
towards conveyance and also `25,000/- towards attendant charges. His father had come from Abudabi and to that effect aforesaid amount was spent for conveyance. It is the specific case of the claimant that the said accident took place when he was studying in I-year Mechanical engineering at M.S.Ramaiah College and because of accidental injuries, he has lost his entire educational career. The said accident has taken place solely because of rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver. It is his case that, respondent No.1 is the owner of the said vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car and both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and thus prayed to award compensation of `1 Crore for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident.
3. Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent. Therefore, placed ex-parte. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017
4. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and resisted the claim petition denying the entire assertions made in the petition. It is contended that, rider of the motorcycle, who was rash and negligent in his riding his motorcycle and because of the same the said accident has taken place. The claimant was not possessing effective and valid driving licence at the time of the accident. He has also contributed in causing the said accident. The liability of respondent No.2 is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is prayed amongst other grounds to dismiss the petition.
5. In view of the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following :
ISSUES
1) Whether petitioner prove that on 15.6.2007 at about 12.00 p.m, near M.S.Ramaiah College Road, Mutthikere, Bangalore, he being the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.TN-37-X-3539 had met with an accident due to rash or negligent driving of the car bearing No.KA-04-
MD-4613 by its driver and he sustained injuries in the accident as averred?
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, what amount and from whom?
3) What Order?
6. Before the Tribunal, to substantiate the case of the claimant, he himself entered the witness box as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and Ex.P22 to Ex.P27. He also examined Dr.Banerji as PW2 and through this doctor he got marked Ex.P15 to Ex.P19, examined Dr.Sharan Srinivasan as PW3 and through him he got marked Ex.P20 and Ex.P21, so also examined Dr.Apurba Barman as PW4 and G.Balakrishna Reddy as PW5 and got marked Ex.P28 to Ex.P35. So also, by leading further evidence, he got marked Ex.P36 to Ex.P39 and closed claimant's evidence.
7. Respondent No.2 has not led any oral or documentary evidence.
8. After analysing and evaluating the evidence and the materials placed before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award dated -7- NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 04.05.2017 has awarded the compensation under the following heads with a sum shown against them, which reads as follows:
Pain, shock and agony `2,50,000/-
Medical expenses, Attendant, `10,00,000/-
food, diet, nourishment,
conveyance, etc.,
Future medical expenses `2,00,000/-
Lose of education prospect `2,00,000/-
Loss of income and future `16,20,000/-
income on account of disability
Disappointment, discomfort, fun `1,00,000/-
and loss of amenities
Total `33,70,000/-
9. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of `33,70,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization excluding future medical expenses, fastening liability jointly and severally on both the respondents, but however directed the 2nd respondent therein-Insurance Company to deposit the award amount.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017
10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in its judgment and award dated 04.07.2017, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under all the heads, on the ground that the same is inadequate.
11. Notice of this appeal is served on the respondents. Respondent No.1 remained unrepresented and respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel.
12. Records are called for from the Tribunal and the same are placed before the Court.
13. Heard the arguments of both the side, meticulously perused the materials placed by both the parties. So also perused the grounds made out in the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and also the Trial Court records.
14. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal are referred to as claimant and respondents. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017
15. Learned counsel Smt.Mamata D.N., for the appellant-claimant submits that, because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car, the said accident has taken place and due to the accidental injuries, now the claimant is completely bedridden and he has suffered paraplegia. It is her submission that, the claimant has spent substantial amount towards his medical expenses. Till date, he is not recovered. After the accident, on getting information, his father working at Abudabi, by applying leave rushed to India and attended the claimant. The claimant not only has taken treatment at Bengaluru in M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, but also at Vellor hospital, so also other hospitals. It is her submission that, when the said accident has taken place, he was I-year mechanical engineering student and prosecuting his studies at M.S.Ramaiah College Bengaluru. The claimant had a bright future and because of the accidental injuries, he has been deprived of his bright career as an engineer. Even till date, he is depending upon others for his movement and always the presence of attendant is necessary for him. It is
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 submitted that, whatever the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and is inadequate. Seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, he has filed this appeal. Even in this appeal also, he has urged various grounds for enhancement of the compensation. He has examined all the doctors, who have treated him and produced all the relevant, required, essential medical documents to prove his disability. There is a 100% disability suffered by him. The respondents are liable to pay the compensation awarded. In support of her submission, she took us through the various pleadings, oral evidence of doctors and the documentary evidence. It is most humbly prayed to enhance the compensation as prayed.
16. Refuting this submission, the counsel for the insurance company denying all the assertions made in the petition and also denying the arguments of counsel for the claimant with all force submits that, whatever the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is just and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 reasonable. Evaluating and assessing the evidence placed on record by the claimant and considering the nature of disability sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has not preferred any appeal. He submits that awarding a compensation in a motor vehicles accidents should be in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court keeping in mind the nature of the injuries sustained, profession of the injured, his status in society, his income etc., Claimant was a student and was not at all earning. As the claimant was not earning when the accident took place, now he cannot claim more compensation as prayed. Therefore, denying all the assertions made in the appeal memo and refuting the submissions of the counsel for the claimant-appellant, he prays to dismiss this appeal.
17. The learned counsel for the claimant in support of her submission, relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017
i) S.Vasanthi and another v. M/s. Adhiparasakthi Engineering College and another (Civil Appeal No.7180 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No.10206/2020 dt.11.10.2022).
ii) Jagadish v. Mohan and others1
iii) Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon and another (Civil Appeal No.4648 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No.18886/2019 dt.06.07.2022).
18. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions of both the sides. Perused the records. In view of these rival submissions, the points that would arise for our consideration are as under:
1) Whether the claimant prove that on 15.06.2007 at 12.00 noon a road traffic accident was occurred on M.S.Ramaiah college road leading towards Mattikere involving a car bearing registration No.KA- 04/MD-4613 solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the car?
2) Whether the claimant has proved that he is entitled for the enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal 1 (2018) 4 SCC 571
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident occurred on the aforesaid date, time and place?
3) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal warrants any interference by this Court?
Point No.1 to 3 are discussed together.
19. So for as happening of road traffic accident on 15.06.2007 at 12.00 noon involving the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-37/X-3537 ridden by the claimant from M.S.Ramaiah college towards Mattikere in the direction of north to south and the car bearing registration No.KA-04/MD-4613 driven by its driver from north to south is not disputed. However, the claimant has produced various documents to prove that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The claimant relies upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 i.e. FIR with complaint, spot sketch, Mahazar, IMV report and charge sheet filed against the driver of the said offending car. These documents do
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 demonstrate that, because of the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, the said road traffic accident has taken place. The evidence of PW1-claimant is substantiated and corroborated by the documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. In the said accident, he has sustained injuries as noticed in the wound certificate marked at Ex.P6. The police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending car for the offences punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC. Thus, it stands established that, because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver the said accident has taken place. That means, the said accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving the car by its driver.
20. Undisputedly, respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal are the owner and insurer of the said offending car and it was held by the Tribunal that, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the only question that arises in this
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 appeal for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident in question.
21. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by documentary evidence with regard to he suffering injuries as noticed in Ex.P6-wound certificate. For taking treatment in hospital as an inpatient, the discharge summary is marked at Ex.P7. He has taken treatment not only as an inpatient but also as out-patient. To prove the said fact, the claimant relied upon 71 medical bills marked at Ex.P13. X-ray bills, inpatient record, out-patient records, city scan report, MRI report, discharge summaries, laboratory reports, other receipts etc., are also marked in evidence as per Ex.P13 to Ex.P32. To show that he was possessing driving licence when the said accident has taken place, he has produced a copy of the driving licence as per Ex.P38. So also he has produced 24 medical bills as per Ex.P39. These documents include the disability assessed by the doctors.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017
22. According to the claimant, he was a meritorious student in primary school, high school as well as college. He was pursuing I-year mechanical engineering course at M.S.Raimaiah College at Bengaluru. Due to the accident, he is unable to move around and he is still in residence. He cannot go to college. All his hopes to become a mechanical engineer have completely drained. He has to depend upon somebody towards rest of his life. He cannot walk, sit, squat, climb or ride the vehicle. He cannot travel and mingle with people. When he gave evidence before the Trial Court, he was unable to stand and walk. He requires wheel chair and help of some person to lift his body. He cannot bend his right leg and keep the same on foot rest. He does not have any sensation towards his right leg. He does not feel the cold or warm sensation on both his legs. He is unable to lift his left leg. Even he cannot sit in toilet. He requires complete assistance of somebody. Even it is stated by him that, at the time of passing urine and motion, it is very difficult for him. These physical defects are because of accidental injuries which have caused
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 functional disability, which has come down to 80% and working capacity to the extent of 100%. Thus, to the whole body, he has suffered 100% disability.
23. It is his further evidence that, his father Sam Kuruvella Kochehuklayil, who was working at Kuwait was forced to rush from Kuwait to Bengaluru for the purpose of assistance of the claimant by applying leave. He was drawing salary of 1,150/- in Dinars in Kuwait and lost his three months income i.e. around `1,50,000/-. The claimant was compelled to take assistance of a person to attend his every requirement and used to pay `5000/- to him. The said assistant is taking care of the claimant so also doing household work. Thus, he is depending upon the attendar to look after him at his residence. This is just because of the said accident occurred. Towards various heads the claimant is entitled for compensation. In support of his evidence, he relied upon various documents marked through him as well as through doctors.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017
24. This PW1-claimant was thoroughly cross- examined by the insurance company. Throughout his cross-examination, he has maintained about the said accident as well as injuries suffered by him so also disability. With regard to the medical expenses, he states that, as per the inpatient bill, he has spent `3,93,580/- towards medical bills. He cannot say the percentage of disability. By way of further evidence, he also has produced the laboratory report etc. Though he is cross- examined at length by the counsel for the insurance company, but he has withstood the test of cross- examination.
25. PW2-Dr.Banarji B.H., Orthopaedic Surgeon at M.S.Ramaiah Memorial hospital has deposed in his evidence that, on 15.06.2007, the claimant admitted in the hospital with history of road traffic accident having sustained injuries in the said accident. He narrates the nature of injuries as, claimant was unable to move his limb and his motor power in both the lower limbs were at grade
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 zero and lost sensation below D5 level. Both bowel and bladder control were lost. He was diagnosed with burst fracture of D3 vertebra, Frankel A paraplegia and fracture of 5th and 6th ribs on right side. All the aforesaid injuries are grievous in nature. In paragraph 2 of his examination in chief, he has narrated about the disability and physical impairment with regard to walking independently, movement of both the lower limbs, he has no bowel and bladder control and had hypoesthesia below D10 on right side and paresthesia below D10 on the left side. He has narrated the motor power in both the limbs.
26. He has produced Ex.P16 to Ex.P19, the documents pertaining to injuries sustained by the claimant. He too has been cross-examined intensively by the insurance company. It is elicited that the claimant was sent to the Neurologist for opinion and one Dr.R.G.Verma being neurologist treated him. According to the medical records, the claimant has suffered the aforesaid fractures. He has withstood the test of cross-examination.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017
27. PW3-Dr.Sharan Srinivasan, the neurosurgeon, has come before the Trial Court and deposed about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident and according to his assessment, as per Directorate General of Health Services, there is a neurological disability - asymmetric spastic paraplegia with relation to whole body equal to 39.54%, social disability - 4.6%, bladder disability due to neurogenic involvement bladder involvement equal to 100% physical impairment. He has noticed physical impairments as under:
a) He had a good sitting standing balance
b) He had adequate ground clearance and endurance to static and dynamic push ups
c) He is independent on a wheel chair.
d) His functional independence measures at discharge were as follows:
1) bed mobility - 7 2) coming up to sit - 7 3) feeding - 7
4) dressing upper and lower halves of body -5
5) grooming - brushing, shaving, combing - 6
6) toileting - urination - indwelling catheter -
suggesting total retention of urine
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 Bowel - self digital evacuation (using his own fingers) indicating absent normal bowel movements. He has been taught to put in a urine tube and remove the urine since he has not been able to pass by itself.
2) He was brought to me on 01/06/09 mainly for assessment of disability. A detailed clinical examination revealed no obvious spinal deformity. He still had tenderness over his right lower ribs. A detailed neurological examination revealed the following deficits. FINAL PERMANENT PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT IN NEUROLOGICAL CONDITIONS:
As per DGHS telescopic sum formula = a+b (90-a) (where a = 100 and b = 39.54) 90 = 100+39.54(90-100) 90 = 100% FINAL WHOLE BODY DISABILITY = 100% THOUGH THE FINAL WHOLE BODY DISABILITY APPEARS TOO HIGH, AS PER THE DGHS (GOVT OF INDIA) GUIDELINES, ANYONE WITH A TOTAL URINARY RETENTION SHOULD BE GIVEN 100% DISABILITY IN VIEW OF THE PROBLEMS (SOCIAL AND MEDICAL) THAT IT WOULD CAUSE IN THE SHORT AND LONG TERM LIKE RECURRENT URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS, ASCENDING PYELONEPHRITIS, CYSTITIS AND EVENTUALLY RENAL FAILURE."
28. On thorough medical examination, he has noticed total whole body disability as 100%. Though he has been cross-examined, but nothing worth is elicited
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 from the mouth of this witness. He is consistent about the disability suffered by the claimant.
29. PW4-Dr.Apurva Barman has come before the Trial Court and deposed that on 15.06.2007, claimant was admitted in hospital with a history of road traffic accident and was discharged subsequently. He narrates the physical status of the claimant as well as he has assigned the grades with regard to the injuries being suffered by him. According to him, the treatment was administered on the claimant and when he was discharged, he was able to ambulate with right A4 and bilateral elbow crutches. At various occasions, claimant was admitted in the hospital and was discharged. As per his evidence, the initial admission of the claimant was on 15.06.2007 and thereafter he was discharged and again admitted in the hospital. As per his evidence, three times the claimant was admitted in hospital for a period of 206 days, 63 days and 62 days respectively i.e. in all to the extent of 8 months 22 days. This fact is not denied by the insurance company.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 Though this PW4 is cross-examined at length but he is consistent about the admission and discharge of the claimant in hospital as stated by him in the examination in chief. The factum of admission and discharge of the claimant at Vellor Hospital is not denied by the insurance company. That means except denial in the cross- examination, nothing worth is elicited.
30. PW5-G.Ramakrishan Reddy working as a Registrar in M.S.Ramaiah College at the relevant time has produced certain documents such as receipt and marks card of the claimant for the 1st and 2nd semester examination conducted in the month of January-2007 and July-2007. Thorough this witness Ex.P34 and Ex.P35 are marked. It is stated by the said witness that 4000 US dollars were paid by the claimant for his admission.
31. On perusal of the other documents so produced by the claimant through himself and the doctors, they do suggest that, this claimant has suffered 'paraplegia' and he is still under treatment. While marking all these
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 documents, no little finger was raised by the insurance company.
32. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant relying upon all these medical records and evidence of doctors submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments, in a case of present nature, the compensation has to be awarded as prayed.
33. In R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt., Ltd.,2 it is held by the Apex Court that "in injury cases, compensation ought to be assessed as pecuniary damage i.e. cost incurred by the claimant and special damages which includes damages for mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life and inconvenience."
34. Though it is argued by the counsel for the Insurance Company that, whatever the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and as per the 2 (1995) 1 SCC 551
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 evidence of the claimant himself, though he has suffered disability but he has not suffered any permanent disability.
35. It is a settled principle of law that, "money cannot bring back any physical frame that has been battered." This principle was laid down in the case of H.West and son Ltd., v. Shepherd3 which is being consistently followed by various courts in India. If there is accident resulting in permanent disability, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation, for future loss of income. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments has emphasised time and again that 'just compensation' should include all elements that would go to place the victim as in earlier position he/she was before the occurrence of the accident. It is true that no money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after the serious accident. Monetary compensation is the manner known to law 3 1964 AC 326
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 whereby society assures measure of restitution for survival of the victim.
36. As per the judgment of R.D.Hattangadi's case (supra) while fixing of amount of compensation payable to the victim in an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
37. In Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others4 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads.
38. The learned counsel for the claimant by relying upon some judgments submits that, the claimant has prayed for enhancement in the compensation and because of permanent disability, the income of the claimant has to be considered as he was an engineering student. She 4 AIR 2020 SC 4424
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 submits that as the claimant was an engineering student and because of accidental injuries the benefits of future prospects has to be calculated in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others5. It is further submitted that due to the injuries in lower limbs, he lost his senses, for calls of nature and needs all time attendant for his daily routine work. He cannot move without wheel chair or motorised vehicle and thus, his future is in complete jeopardy. The lower limb of claimant was completely paralysed resulting into 100% disability. Therefore, she submits that, the compensation on account of injuries causing 100% disability is required to be awarded. It is her submission that, because of 100% permanent disability suffered by the claimant, resulted in permanent disability in his bodily movements. This fact has not been denied by the insurance company. In view of the condition of the claimant, as noticed by the treating doctors stated supra, it shows that, the claimant is required attendant to meet 5 AIR 2017 SC 5157
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 his needs. According to the claimant there is no hope for complete recovery of his physical impairments. According to her submission, as the claimant was an engineering student, who had bright future has to be awarded reasonable compensation. It is the duty of the courts to grant just compensation, taking into account the realities of life, particularly of inflation the quest of individuals to better their circumstances and those of their loved ones, raising wage rates and the impact of experience on the quality of the work. If one takes this rationale into account, the situation is quite clear with respect to notional income.
39. The Division Bench of this Court (I am also member of Bench) in MFA No.9029/2018 (MV-D) clubbed with MFA No.6018/2018 (MV-D) His Lordship Dr.H.B.Prabhakar Sastry J., being the author of the judgment, relying upon the documents therein, produced by the claimant, assessed the notional income of an engineering student at `18,000/- per month. While
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 assessing the said income, it is observed that "in the instant case also, the deceased V.B.Pavan was a student pursuing his 1st year B.E. course, as such his course cannot be equated to that of a student pursuing MBBS course, who were deceased. In Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another6 case and in the case of Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Hanumanthappa and others in MFA No.1129/2019 (MV-D) C/w MFA No.4937/2018 (MV-D) disposed of on 20.03.2023. Thus, the income of the deceased in the given case which was taken at a sum of `30,000/- by the Tribunal is without any reasons or basis and as such it is on the higher side. On the other hand, the income of the deceased-V.B.Pavan is to be taken notionally at a sum of `18,000/- per month.
40. The Tribunal, in the present case, has awarded loss of income and future income on account of disability to the extent of `16,20,000/-. But as the claimant has 6 (2015) 2 SCC 180
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 suffered 100% disability and even the Tribunal also has come to the conclusion that, the claimant has suffered 100% disability, then the notional income of `18,000/- is to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal has taken the notional income at `7,500/-. The Tribunal has assessed the same at `16,20,000/- which in our opinion is on the lower side. The said notional income so assessed by the Tribunal in our considered view is incorrect. Therefore, when the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 100% and his notional income is assessed at `18,000/- per month, the proper multiplier as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., and another7 case is '18'. Thus, the loss of future income due to disability is assessed at `18,000 x 12 x 18 = `38,88,000/-.
41. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards pain, shock and agony to the extent of `2,50,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries and the treatment being taken by him, so also the trauma the 7 (2009) 6 SCC 121
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 claimant has suffered, in our considered opinion, the award of `2,50,000/- is just and proper and no interference is required with regard to the said award.
42. So far as medical expenses, attendant, food, diet, nourishment, conveyance, as per the evidence brought on record, claimant was admitted in the hospital as inpatient thrice. In all for a total period of 8 months 22 days. The notional income is assessed at `18,000/- per month. Approximately for 8 months 22 days there is loss of income during laid up period, which comes to `1,57,200/-.
43. Based upon the medical receipts and keeping in mind the attendant charges, food, diet, nourishment etc., the Tribunal has awarded `10,00,000/- globally under the head of medical expenses, attendant charges, food, diet, nourishment, conveyance etc., In view of the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant, the present condition of the claimant, his disability and also requirement of the permanent attendant etc., if under the said head in
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 addition to `10,00,000/- if another sum of `2,00,000/- is enhanced, it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, claimant is held entitled for `12,00,000/- under the head medical expenses, attendant charges, food, diet, nourishment, conveyance etc., globally.
44. So far as future medical expenses is concerned, keeping in mind the treatment administered on the claimant and the evidence of the doctors, the Tribunal has awarded `2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. Awarding of the future medical expenses is not challenged by the insurance company. Even there is no argument advanced on that aspect. Therefore, whatever the compensation so awarded under the head of future medical expenses is to be maintained.
45. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of `2,00,000/- under the head of loss of education prospect. This fact is not denied by the insurance company. Therefore, as the claimant has lost his educational career, who was pursuing mechanical engineering course, he is
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 now deprived of his education because of this permanent disability. Therefore, whatever the compensation awarded under this head is just and reasonable.
46. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of `1,00,000/- towards disappointment, discomfort, inconvenience and loss of amenities. A young engineering student has suffered grievous injuries and has suffered permanent disability. With all frustrations, inconvenience, discomfort etc., he has to lead his remaining life. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation so awarded under the said head appears to be on lower side. If it is increased to `2,00,000/- from `1,00,000/- it would meet the ends of justice.
47. In view of the discussions made supra, the claimant is held entitled for compensation under the various following heads:
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB
MFA No. 8396 of 2017
Pain, shock and agony `2,50,000/-
Medical expenses, Attendant, food, `12,00,000/-
diet, nourishment, conveyance, etc., Future medical expenses `2,00,000/- Lose of education prospects `2,00,000/- Loss of future income on account of `38,88,000/- disability Loss of income during laid up period `1,57,200/- of 8 months 22 days Disappointment, discomfort, fun and `2,00,000/-
loss of amenities
Total `60,95,200/-
48. By assessing the notional income of the
appellant-claimant at `18,000/- per month, now the claimant is awarded a substantial compensation under the aforesaid heads and therefore, we are of the considered view that he is not entitled for any more compensation under any other heads.
49. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for total compensation of `60,95,200/- as against `33,70,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. Thereby, the total quantum of
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 compensation is enhanced by `27,25,200/-. Accordingly, the points for consideration are answered in favour of the appellant-claimant.
50. Barring the above, neither the claimant nor the insurance company has raised any other grounds worth to be considered and insurance company has not preferred any separate appeal challenging the said award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the I-Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT Bengaluru dated 04.05.2017 in MVC No.5527/2007 is hereby modified and the claimant is held entitled to total compensation of `60,95,200/-.
iii. The compensation so awarded by the
Tribunal for a sum of `33,70,000/- is
enhanced by `27,25,200/- with interest @
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12906-DB MFA No. 8396 of 2017 6% per annum from the date of petition till entire realization.
iv. The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the insurance company and directing it to deposit the award amount, apportionment of the compensation, terms regarding release of the amount and the rate of interest shall remain unaltered and unmodified.
v. There shall be a modified award accordingly. vi. Registry to transmit the trial court records to the concerned tribunal along with the copy of this judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE YAN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2