Mahendra Vs. Abdul Gani & Ors.
Email(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 5335-5336 of 2001)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 5335-5336 of 2001)
Motor vehicle accident – Appellant, a civil engineer, aged 34 years, suffering permanent disability from accident, claiming compensation, amounting to Rs. 31 lakhs – Accident claims tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs. 3.76 lakhs including Rs. 2.52 lakhs towards loss of future income and Rs. 90,000/- towards medical expenses – On appeal, High Court reducing the amount to just Rs. 70,000/- – Whether High Court justified in doing so. Held, considering the age of the appellant and the fact that he was a civil engineer and also the permanent disability suffered by him, High Court not right in totally excluding the compensation awarded for loss of future income and the reduction in the medical expenses was also not fair and proper. Appellant accordingly directed to be paid a sum of Rs. 1.70 lakhs as compensation for loss of future income and Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses in addition to the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by High Court for physical disability and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of normal enjoyment of life. Total compensation to carry interest at 9 per cent.
The appellant had to undergo several surgical operations on account of the multiple fractures and injury to the knee cap of the right limb. For such treatment, he must have been put to heavy expenses. In our view, on the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be taken as a reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant. (Para 9)
The sums awarded by the High Court as compensation for physical disability and towards loss of normal enjoyment of life will remain unaltered. The total compensation amount will carry interest at 9 per cent per annum instead of 6 per cent ordered by the High Court. (Para 9)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents against the order passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, the claimant has filed these appeals assailing the said judgment. The High Court in the judgment under challenge, dismissed the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount and allowed the appeal filed by the owner and insurer of the vehicle which caused the accident.
4. The relevant facts material for consideration of the points arising in the case, may be stated thus;
In the accident, which took place on 26.2.1994, the appellant suffered multiple fractures on the right leg on account of which he had to undergo many surgical operations including one for replacement of the right knee cap. The injuries resulted in shortening of his right leg by half inch. In the opinion of the doctor, the appellant suffered 60% permanent disability of the right lower limb. The appellant was a civil engineer employed in two partnership firms engaged in construction works. He was aged 34 years at the time of the accident. Initially, he claimed compensation under different heads amounting to Rs. 4.75 lakhs which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 31,25,000/-.
5. The case was contested by the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.
6. The tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record, awarded a total sum of Rs. 3.76 lakhs including a sum of Rs. 2.52 lakhs towards loss of future income and Rs. 90,000/- towards medical expenses, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Both parties filed appeals challenging the award passed by the tribunal. The High Court, as it appears from the discussions in the judgment, has totally excluded the sum of Rs. 2.52 lakhs awarded towards future loss of income and reduced the compensation
towards medical expenses from Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The High Court awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards physical disability and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of normal enjoyment of life. The total sum awarded to claimant was reduced from Rs. 3.76 lakhs to Rs. 70,000/-. Hence, the grievance of the claimant.
7. The main thrust of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant was against the total exclusion of the compensation awarded for loss of future income and the drastic cut in the amount awarded for medical expenses.
8. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly permanent disability suffered by the appellant, who, at the relevant time was a young man of 34 years of age and was a civil engineer engaged in construction industry. We have also taken note of the unsatisfactory nature of the material produced in support of the claim of Rs. 31 lakhs as compensation, which in the circumstances, is highly exaggerated. The tribunal found that the appellant could not substantiate his case that his monthly income was Rs. 7,000/- from two partnership firms. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the view that the High Court was not right in totally excluding the compensation awarded for loss of future income. Though the sum of Rs. 2.52 lakhs claimed by the appellant is not substantiated from the material on record, the fact remains that in view of the nature of permanent disability suffered by the appellant, who is a civil engineer engaged in field work, his capacity for work and potential for higher income will be adversely affected. In our considered view, a total of Rs. 1.70 lakhs will be a reasonable amount of compensation on that count. Further, reduction of sum awarded towards medical expenses from Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- is not fair and proper. The appellant had to undergo several surgical operations on account of the multiple fractures and injury to the knee cap of the right limb. For such treatment, he must have been put to heavy expenses. In our view, on the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be taken as a reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant. The High Court was clearly in error in surmising that if the appellant would have been admitted in another hospital which had better facility for treatment, he would not have suffered the permanent disability to the extent found. The tribunal and the High Court were not justified in reducing the interest from 9% to 6% per annum. It is not disputed before us that during the relevant period, 9 per cent per annum was the prevailing rate of interest awarded in compensation cases. To sum up, the appellant will get a sum of Rs. 1.70 lakhs as compensation on account of loss of future income, and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses. The sums awarded by the High Court as compensation for physical disability and towards loss of normal enjoyment of life will remain unaltered. The total compensation amount will carry interest at 9 per cent per annum instead of 6 per cent ordered by the High Court.
9. The appeals are allowed in part to the extent noted above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for cost.
