Madhya Pradesh High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Virendra Singh (Deceased) Through ... on 4 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)ACC369, 2006ACJ2343
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Chief Justice, A.M. Sapre
JUDGMENT R.V. Raveendran, C.J. and A.M. Sapre, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the insurance company (NA-3) under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 20.10.2000, passed by the learned Second Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 378 of 1997.
2. In this appeal, the appellant, i.e., the insurance company has questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Member of Claims Tribunal to the claimant Virendra Singh, respondent No. 1, who expired pending this appeal and now represented by his legal representatives, the respondent Nos. 1 (i) to (iv) amounting to Rs. 7,47,630 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 28.5.1997.
3. So the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether Claims Tribunal was justified on facts in determining compensation amounting to Rs. 7,47,630 to an injured, i.e., Virendra Singh who met with a car accident that occurred on 28.5.1997. As observed supra, during pendency of this appeal injured died and hence, his legal representatives have been brought on record to represent the estate devolved upon them consequent upon the death of Virendra Singh. In this appeal, the appellant has not questioned any other findings such as issues regarding negligence and the liability of insurance company, etc., though decided against the appellant. Similarly, claimants have also not filed any cross-objections or appeal in claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to take note of all facts in detail. Moreover, the appellant being the insurance company, their right to oppose the claim and challenge the findings of Tribunal recorded against them in appeal is quite limited. Since in this case the Tribunal has granted permission to the , insurance company as contemplated under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on all grounds and hence, they are in appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
4. As observed supra, it is an injury case. Injured, Virendra Singh, aged 48 years, working at the relevant time on the post of Radio Operator in State Police Department suffered multiple injuries on his body in a car accident on 28.5.1997. The injuries virtually made injured a totally handicapped person. His half of the body became paralytic by a disease known as paraplegia of both limbs. Indeed this fact is amply proved by several medical certificates issued from time to time by the treating doctors (Exhs. P579, P264 and P9) and so on. It is also not in dispute or we may say amply proved by documentary evidence led by the claimant that he though was totally confined to bed from the date of accident (28.5.1997) till 3.1.2000 when joined the services but, eventually succumbed to injuries and died on 30.3.2002. It is also not in dispute as has come in evidence that though he joined the services but could do nothing because of his total incapacity to attend his day-to-day needs.
5. Learned Member of the Tribunal took into consideration the nature of injury, the extent of disability, resultant loss sustained by injured, both in terms of physical impairment as also loss in service, etc., the expenses incurred in long treatment taken by injured and then came to a conclusion that a sum of Rs. 7,47,630 would be the reasonable, adequate and proper compensation payable for the injuries sustained. As observed supra, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle though suffered the award have not come forward to challenge the award on any ground. Instead, the insurance company has felt aggrieved and has filed this appeal challenging only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
6. Heard Mr. H.G. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.N. Dave, learned Counsel for respondents.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly attacked the finding in relation to determination of quantum. According to him, it is on higher side and hence, need to be reduced.
8. He urged that the manner in which the Tribunal has awarded compensation in different heads do not justify the determination and hence, this Court should interfere and reduce the sum within reasonable limits. In reply, the learned Counsel for the claimants has defended the impugned determination and has contended that it is not only reasonable but legal, adequate and proper if it is examined in the context of the injury and its resultant loss sustained.
9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. As a consequence, it is liable to be dismissed resulting in upholding of the impugned award in its entirety.
10. In our considered opinion, Tribunal has awarded a reasonable and adequate compensation to the claimants and hence, no fault can be noticed at least in the ultimate amount determined. In other words, whether more compensation is awarded under one head and less is awarded in other is no ground to interfere if we find that overall compensation awarded is reasonable. We, on our part, have also calculated the compensation payable to injured under different heads such as loss of consortium, loss of amenities, loss of life expectancy, future loss of earning capacity, conventional and special diet, expenses incurred in treatment. In our opinion, on calculation which is based on nature of injury and resultant 100 per cent disablement, together with voluminous documentary evidence, we also arrive at the same figure which Tribunal has arrived at. We, therefore, do not find that it is a case of excessive award being passed in favour of injured who unfortunately died pending this appeal.
11. The break-up of the amount awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:
(i) For pain and suffering Rs. 20,000
(ii) For medical and treatment expenses Rs. 1,02,630
(iii) For transport, special diet and
miscellaneous expenses Rs. 20,000
(iv) For future loss of earning capacity Rs. 6,05,000
------------
Total Rs. 7,47,630
------------
The main grievance of insurer appellant is in regard to award of Rs. 6,05,000 towards future loss of earning capacity. It is pointed out that the respondent No. 1 (claimant) who was working as a wireless operator in the police department though seriously injured and was on sick leave between date of accident (28.5.1997) and 2.1.2000, had resumed duties on 3.1.2000 and was receiving regular salary as a government servant. It is, therefore, contended that there is no future loss of earning capacity.
12. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the L.Rs. of the respondent No. 1 submitted the injuries were very serious, that the respondent No. 1 never recovered from the injuries, though he somehow managed to report to duty on 3.1.2000, he died on 30.3.2002 during the pendency of the appeal on account of the effects of the injuries sustained and the compensation awarded is on the lower side.
13. The following facts are established by the evidence:
(i) The respondent No. 1 sustained the following injuries:
Dislocation of C6-C7 vertebra with total paraplegia of both lower limbs and anterior dislocation with quadriplegia, urinary incontinence retention with overflow.
(ii) He was under treatment and on leave till 2.1.2000 (from 28.5.1997) for nearly 2 years and 7 months.
(iii) The disability and effect of the injuries were--100 per cent disability to the whole body and the patient's life has become wheelchair life.
14. Though the heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be some what erroneous, there is no error in the total compensation. We may briefly refer to the different heads and quantum that ought to have been awarded:
(i) Having regard to nature of injuries and the period of treatment, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 ought to have been awarded under the head of 'pain and suffering' instead a meagre amount of Rs. 20,000.
(ii) Having regard to the documentary and oral evidence, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 ought to have been awarded under the head of expenditure incurred for treatment, medicines, attendant's charges, conveyance and expenses and special diet (as against the sum of Rs. 1,02,630 + Rs. 20,000 awarded by the Tribunal).
(iii) The respondent No. 1 was earning around Rs. 6,500 (that is basic pay of Rs. 4,582 and allowances). The loss of earnings during the period of treatment and convalescence (2 years 7 months) was thus Rs. 2,01,500. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the said sum of Rs. 1,95,300 under the head of loss of earnings during period of treatment and convalescence.
(iv) On account of the injuries and consequential disability, the respondent No. 1 lost amenities of life and life expectancy was also curtailed. In fact the respondent No. 1 died in the year 2002. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have awarded at least Rs. 2,00,000 under the head of loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life/curtailment of life. Thus, total would be around Rs. 7,50,000.
15. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal which fails and is dismissed.
16. No costs.