Madras High Court
M. Raman vs Indev Trans. And National Insurance Co. ... on 16 October, 2003
JUDGMENT N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2001 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in C.M.A. No. 596 of 2001 confirming the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) made in M.C.O.P. No. 1875 of 1998 dated 28.11.2000.
2. The appellant preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, and the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 95,178.47 and the award of the Claims Tribunal was confirmed by the learned Judge of this Court. The brief facts are that the appellant was going in a scooter on 6.2.1998 with his wife on the Ennore Express Road, Chennai in north-south direction at about 5.15 p.m. The lorry belonging to the first respondent came from behind and hit against the appellant causing grievous injuries. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and the finding was confirmed by the learned Judge of this Court. We confirm the finding of the learned Judge as we find that the finding is based on evidence and there are no reasons to take a different view on the finding of rash and negligence in driving of the vehicle by the lorry driver.
3. The appellant has claimed compensation under several heads totalling a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. As far as compensation arising on account of permanent disability is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has found, on the basis of evidence, that the claimant had suffered 45% of disability on account of the accident and fixed the compensation at Rs. 45,000/-. We find that the amount of Rs. 45,000/- is quite reasonable.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that the Claims Tribunal as well as the learned Judge was not correct in rejecting the claim of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of earning and that amount should have been awarded. There is no dispute that the appellant was working as Fitter in Ennore Thermal Power Station and retired from service in June, 1998. The accident occurred on 6.2.1998. The Claims Tribunal found that there are no materials to show that the appellant was on leave without pay from February, 1998 till the date of superannuation as the appellant has not chosen to examine any independent witness, nor any documentary evidence was produced to show that he suffered loss of income from the date of accident till the date of superannuation. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the appellant had retired from service at the end of June, 1998 and the appellant had availed the leave and though he availed the leave with pay, still the appellant would be entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income. Learned counsel for the appellant, in this connection, relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in B.ANANDHI v. R.LATHA (2002 ACJ 233) where the Bench held that where the injured was on leave at the time of accident, the mere fact that he received salary for leave period is not a ground to hold that he would not be entitled to get compensation for loss of earning. Learned counsel strongly relied on the decision in Anandhi's case and submitted that the appellant is entitled to claim compensation for loss of earning from the month of February, 1998 to June, 1998 when he retired from service.
5. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that there is no evidence at all by the appellant, either oral or documentary, to show that the appellant went on leave without pay from February, 1998 to June, 1998. Further, the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that there was actual loss of income due to the accident and no documentary evidence was produced to show that the appellant had suffered loss of income during the period due to the accident. The appellant has not even taken steps to examine anyone from Ennore Thermal Power Station to prove that the appellant was on leave without pay, nor is there any evidence to show that the appellant was entitled to encash the leave which he could not do because he availed leave for four months prior to his retirement due to the accident.
6. As far as the decision of this Court in B. Anandhi's case (2002 ACJ 233) is concerned, though a cursory reading of the decision shows that the claimant would be entitled to compensation for loss of earning though he received salary for the period in question, on a deeper consideration, we are of the view that the ratio of the decision does not apply to the facts of the case as there are no materials before the Claims Tribunal to show that he was on leave without pay. There are no materials also even to show that he was unable to encash the leave due to the fact that he availed the leave from February, 1998 to June, 1998 when he retired from service. Hence, we are in agreement with the view of the learned Judge that the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income for the period from February, 1998 to June, 1998.
7. The second ground of challenge is with reference to the amount of medical expenses. The appellant has claimed a total sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards medical expenses and produced the bills under Exs.P-4 to P-8 in support of the claim. On the basis of Exs.P-4 to P-8 it was found that the appellant had spent a sum of Rs. 43,678.47 being the amount fully covered by the bills and that amount was also awarded. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had been treated not only in Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai, but also in a private nursing Home called, Sugam Hospital, Chennai as an inpatient and he was taking treatment as an outpatient and some of the medical bills were not preserved and could not be produced due to the reason that some of the relatives of the claimant though purchased the medicines had not preserved the bills and a realistic view of the entire situation should be taken and the entire amount claimed towards medical expenses should be awarded. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in MANJU DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA (1998 ACJ 747) wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that it could not be lost sight of that the anxiety of the relatives would be to save the life of the injured and not to collect evidence in support of compensation on account of his likely demise. Though the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is not applicable, yet, we cannot be completely oblivious of the situation that some of the medical bills might not have been preserved. The fact remains that the appellant was admitted in Government Stanley Hospital and later he was treated as an inpatient in a private nursing Home and he has also taken treatment as an outpatient. Learned counsel for the appellant has also produced before us the discharge summary (Ex.P-2) given by Sugam Hospital to show the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant wherein it is stated that the appellant was advised to take further treatment and the period of treatment. Hence, it is possible that the appellant might not have preserved all the bills. Considering the nature of the injuries, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses would be quite reasonable and we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and reject the claim of the appellant for the balance amount.
8. The next ground of challenge is the award of Rs. 4,000/- towards pain and sufferings. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as there was a fracture of left leg, and other injuries were superfluous in nature. Learned Judge also held that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- for pain and sufferings would be reasonable. Though learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and sufferings, we find that the Claims Tribunal had the opportunity to see the appellant in person when it fixed the compensation at Rs. 4,000/- for pain and sufferings and there are no evidence contra to hold that the amount of Rs. 4,000/- fixed is not reasonable. We find that the learned Judge has taken into account the nature of injuries and held that the appellant would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,000/- towards pain and sufferings. We do not find any reason to take a different view on this aspect.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded towards transport expenses which is quite meagre. The Claims Tribunal found that the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards transport expenses and the learned Judge has also affirmed the finding. We hold that the amount of Rs. 1,000/- awarded towards transport expenses is quite reasonable and there is no evidence also to show that the amount awarded is insufficient and not correct. In this connection, it is also relevant to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. JASBIR KAUR (2003 AIR SCW 4198) where the Supreme Court held that the expression, 'just' compensation under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 denotes that the compensation amount should be equitable, fair, reasonable and not-arbitrary. The supreme Court also held that what would be 'just' compensation is a vexed question and there can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. The Supreme Court also held that there must be material before the Court to arrive at the compensation and the compensation cannot be awarded as a windfall for the victim and the statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit, but the same should not be a pittance. Applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur's case (2003 AIR SCW 4198), we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Judge except in the case of medical expenses which is enhanced to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from Rs. 43,678.47.
10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation towards medical expenses is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- and in other respects, the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is entitled to interest on the balance amount at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.