Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nasir Mohamad Shah vs M.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... on 19 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: 2(1988)ACC213
JUDGMENT Rampal Singh, J.
1. This judgment shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 755 of 1979 Abdul Majid Khan v. M.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. The appellant and the applicant in Civil Revision No. 775 of 1979 were co-travellers in a bus owned by M.P. State Road Transport Corporation bearing No. MPK 3849 and this bus was travelling from Jabalpur to Balaghat on 23rd June 1975. At Waraseoni this passenger bus met with an accident as a result of which the appellant/claimant and the applicant/claimant got injured. Hence they filed claims under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal, Balaghat. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle, now is the Depot Manager of M.P.S.R.T.C. Balaghat, No. 3 is the driver and No. 4 is the Depot Manager at Jabalpur.
2. The trial Court after framing issues, recorded evidence and handed over the findings The appellant Nasir Mohamad. Shah claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs. The trial Court answered the issues thus:
(i) The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3, due to which the claimant sustained multiple injuries in his body;
(ii) The monthly income of the claimant was assessed at Rs. 800/-per month and the loss of his income was only for nine months ... and he is entitled on this account damages of Rs. 7200/- only;
(iii) The claimant has spent a sum of Rs. 900.97 P. for his treatment;
(iv) He is entitled to mental and physical pain and also disability for which he is to get only Rs. 5000/-; and
(v) No cost was awarded.
3. Aggrieved by this award passed by the Claims Tribunal, Balaghat, the appellant and the applicant, both, respectively filed appeal and revision before this Court. Both of them contended that the Tribunal was in error in awarding such megre amount without interest. The manner in which the accident occured is important to note. After the bus had travelled 3 or 4 miles from Lakhnadon the lights of the vehicle failed along with the head lights but the respondent No. 3 went on driving the bus disregarding the safty of the passengers who were travelling in the ill-fated bus Instead of repairing the bus, respondent No. 3 drove the vehicle for 37 miles in the dark, cloudy and rainy season disregarding the grave risk to the lives of the travelling passengers. When the bus reached Seoni, the respondent No. 3 is alleged to have said that the lights have been repaired but they were partially functioning, diminishing the visibility to nil. It was also alleged by the claimants that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed inspite of the bus having mechanical and electrical trouble. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 3 was continuously dissuaded from driving the bus at a high speed as in the way there were ghats with curves in the road and this terrain required careful driving but the respondent No. 3 is alleged to have remained indifferent to them and on several occasions the bus narrowly escaped mishap. While clearing a culvert at 2-25 a.m. the bus hit a drum near a culvert, then dashed against a tree causing serious damage not only to the bus but also to the passengers. Both the, claimants are said to be occupying the front seat and due to this accident the seat in which they were sitting was up-rooted and both of them had to bear the entire brunt of collision as a result of which the claimant suffered numerous fractures, multiple and compound, simple and other injuries accompanied by profused bleeding. They remained in the injured position for five hours at Waraseoni. They were given first aid and then were rushed to Balaghat district hospital where the appellant was treated upto 28th June 1975. From Balaghat he was brought to Jabalpur by train on 29th June and then was X-rayed by the Orthopaedic Dr. N.K. Vasudeo and was admitted to Seth Mannoolal Jagannathdas , Trust Hospital Jabalpur and was operated upon. The appellant/claimant sustained the following injuries:
(A) Left Leg : (1) Communited fracture upper third tibia
and fibula, involving left knee joint,
being an intraocular fracture.
(2) Displaced compound communited fracture,
middle third left leg, with lacerated
wounds on medial as well as on lateral
side of fracture, size being 4 inch x 1 inch x 1 inch on the lateral side and 3 inch x 1 inch x 1 inch on the medial side. There was a wound over fracture site, through which the bone
pieces were visible, size being 4 inch x 1 inch.
(3) There was foot drop on left side.
(4) The neck of fibula fractured as
well as it was fractured in the middle
third.
(B) Right leg : Crack in upper third of Tibia involving the
knee joint.
(C) Right Hand : Fracture of the matacarpel bone of the ring
finger and little finger.
(D) Left hand : Cuts by glass splinters.
(E) Head : Lacerated wound, scalp.
(F) Contusions over body : (a) The medical certificate and X-ray photos
and medical certificates of Dr. N.K.
Vasudeo and of Mannoolal Hospital are
relied and will be filed.
(b) The wounds of the left leg took a long
time to heal up, as it was communicating
with the bone. When they had healed up by
14th August 1975, only then plaster for
setting bones, corrections and wedging
could be done on 14th and 17th August.
The applicant was discharged from the
hospital on 19th August 1975 with a plas-
ter on his left leg which permitted no
movement or walking with any aid. The
leg is still in plaster. On 8-11-75 the
plaster was removed and X-ray photos were
taken, which showed that callus formation
was taking place, but it was weak.
Therefore, another plaster been put on
which continues today.
(c) Skin grafting had to be done to cover all
the deep wounds.
(d) As the fracture is involving the joint
there was chances of stiffness of knee and
further disability which may be of permanent
nature. Movements have been restricted to a
great extent and all these injuries have
damaged his health beyond repair.
4. In Civil Revision No. 775 of 1979 the claimant though claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation but was awarded only Rs. 503-75. The reason for awarding this meager compensation was that the claimant sustained only simple injuries.
5. The main contention of the appellant/claimant is that the amount awarded as compensation for mental and physical pain has been lumped with disability and that is why only Rs. 5000/- has been awarded, though he suffered grievous injuries upon his person and also remained in constant pain and suffering for such a long time. In Civil Revision No. 775 of 1979 the applicant has contended that looking to the gravity of the accident, although he has suffered simple injuries, but was entitled to higher compensation.
6. Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act states that the Claims Tribunal shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and would thus appear that the Claims Tribunal has a very wide discretion in the matter of awarding compensation. When a person is physically disabled on account of the accident, he is not only deprived of his earning but he also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident. A grievously injured passenger, throughout the rest of his life suffers, with a feeling that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as a normal man can do. It is to be remembered that in case of personal injury the duty of the Claims Tribunal is to separately ascertain and determine under different heads the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and although the eventual award must be for a lump-sum, the award must indicate the different parts constituting the lump-sum to find out as to whether a wrong principle has been applied or whether there is any erroneous estimate of damages. While determining the amount of compensation some factors have to be kept in mind. Principles for awarding compensation for the injuries received in the motor accident are necessary to be considered. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages, the amount of damages varies according to gravity of the injury. In principle, the loss of bodily integrity gives a right to damages even if there was no damage at all to the earning capacity or even to enjoyment of life. But damages in such cases were awarded to commensurate with the extent, gravity and duration of the injury. The test in such a case was to ask as to whether physical integrity of the injured person was broken, and if so, whether the same was of a temporary nature or permanent nature. It is also to be considered as to what impact and to what extent the physical incapacity or temporary or permanent disability would be reflected in the earning capacity of the injured.
7. In this case the Tribunal has certainly committed an error in awarding compensation after lumping the two different heads, i.e. physical pain and suffering and disability. Light is thrown on the subject by Vinod Kumar v. Ved Mitra 1970 M.P.L.J. 504 and for convenience it is reproduced below:
The task of assessment of damages for non-pecuniary damages in personal injury action is a difficult one, for human suffering resulting from any serious bodily injury cannot from its very nature be valued in terms of money, But as the injured can be awarded only monetary compensation, the Courts make an endeavour as best as they can to quantify non-pecuniary damage in terms of money having regard to the injury and the damage resulting from it. In the process of application, the wide discretion that the Courts exercise in making awards of compensation, like any other judicial discretion, has canalized itself into a set of rules. These rules are: (1) The amount of compensation awarded must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation; (2) Regard must be bad to award made in comparable cases; and (3) The sums awarded should be to a considerable extent be conventional. It is only by adherence to these self imposed rules that the Courts can decide like cases in like manner and bring about a measure of predictability of their awards.
Before cases can be used as comparable cases, they must bear a reasonable measure of similarity; it is necessary to ensure that in main essentials the facts of one case must bear comparison with the facts of another before any comparison between the awards in the respective cases can fairly or profitably be made.
Thus, looking to the extent of severe orthopedic injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant, he is entitled to separate compensation: (i) for physical pain and suffering; and (ii) for disability. We have seriously poindered over the matter and at last evaluated that Rs. 5,000/- should be awarded to the appellant /claimant for physical pain and injury. We, therefore, while keeping in view the serious injuries caused to the appellant in the accident, deem it just and proper to award Rs. 5000/- as damages for physical pain and suffering only. Disability caused to the appellant, due to serious injuries and fractures are being separately assumed at Rs. 10000/-. So far as the loss of earning is concerned, the assessment made by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be unjust. The finding of the Claims Tribunal that the claimant has spent a sum of Rs 900 97 for his treatment can also be not said to be unjust, because both these findings are based on the evidence on record.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also contended that no compensation for loss of practice has been awarded during the period of nine months, but this contention on the face of the finding by the Claims Tribunal is irrelevant. The same has been considered and an amount of Rs. 7400/- has been awarded to the appellant as loss of practice for nine months, i.e. during the period of his confinement.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation for pain and suffering is assessed at Rs. 5000/- and compensation for disability caused is assessed to be Rs 10,000/-. The total amount thus comes to Rs. 23,300 97 (Rs. 7400/- +5000/- +900.90+10,000). The last contention of the appellant was that no interest was awarded on the amount of compensation to the appellant by the Claims Tribunal. The reasoning given by the Claims Tribunal is that no interest was prayed for in the petition itself. Be that as it may. The prayer of the appellant cannot be said to be unreasonable on the face of the fact that he is entitled to receive interest on the amount of compensation. Consequently, keeping in view the principles of Sumanbai v. State we award interest at 6% per annum to the appellant on the amount of compensation of Rs. 23,300.97 from the date of the application till realisation of the amount.
10. With this modification in the award, the appeal is partly allowed and the award shall be modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. So far as Civil Revision No. 775 of 1979 is concerned, the amount of Rs. 503.75 seems to be meagre. Therefore, keeping in view the serious nature of the accident, the amount of compensation is increased to Rs. 1000/-. The applicant shall also be entitled to get interest at 6% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of the application till realisation. The appellant and the applicant shall get costs proportionate to the compensation. Counsel's fee in this Court is quantified at Rs. 250/- in each case.