of compensation payable to the victim of accident or his dependents on
pecuniary as well as non pecuniary grounds. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal is bound to consider binding judicial precedents cited in the light
of facts and circumstances brought on record so that just, fair and proper
compensation is granted to the claimant in motor accident claim.
Needless to state that quantum of compensation is required to be decided
bearing in mind the settled principles as well as guidelines from the
binding judicial precedents. The amount of compensation ought not to be
decided on the basis of conjectures and speculations, but must be based
upon sound judicial principles and guidelines and the evidence on record
as well as material disclosed in facts and circumstances of each case
whether it is the claim based on death of victim in motor vehicle accident
case or injuries received by victim in such accident case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 1136 of 2011
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
versus
Pramod son of Shankarrao Bhonde, aged
about 20 years, Occ: Student, through his
next friendfather, Shankarrao Rajaramji
Bhonde, resident of Guljaripura, Near Ved
Mangal Karlaya, Anjangaon Surji, District
Amravati (original claimant)
Coram : A. P. Bhangale, J
Dated : 11th August 2015
Citation;2016(1) ALLMR69
1. This appeal is preferred against judgment and Award dated
19th April 2011 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Amravati in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2005 whereby the learned Member
of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 19,20,000/ payable to the claimant
as compensation inclusive nofault liability amount awarded under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act together with interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
2. Brief facts are that, claimant – an engineering student while
sitting pillion on the motorcycle (bearing registration number MH31AZ
5939) driven by one Prajwal More was dashed by a truck bearing
registration number MH31/AP6855 coming from opposite direction. Due
to the impact, petitioner and his friend were thrown away on the road.
Claimant Pramod received grievous injuries on vital parts of his body and
was rendered disable for almost hundred percent for pursing his
education as engineering student in B. E. PartII. As a result of accident,
the claimant had to undergo medical treatment for various grievous
injuries to his body. These injuries were described as under :
“I (i) depressed fracture of anterior wall of right masillary sinus with
fracture of nasal arches on both sides.
(ii) Fluid collection in bilateral maxillary sinus.
(iii) Intracerebral haematoma measuring 1.5 cm x 1.1 cm size inleft
gangliocaspsolar region s/o shearing injury.
(iv) Subarchnoid haemorrhagesin right Sylvain tissues.
(v) Multiple haemorrhagic cortical contusion in bilateral basifrontal
region.
(vi) Soft tissue swelling in the region of right maxilla and right parietal
region.
II. Compound fracture to the right leg. The rod is fixed from hip joint
to knee i.e. femur by making surgery.
III. Grievous injuries and multiple fractures to the frontal side, face,
nose, tooth, mandible region, throat and tongue.
IV. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to which he is unable
to eat or drink, a tube is fixed for providing juice to the petitioner since
the date of accident.
V. The fluid (water) is collected in the brain of the petitioner, it is
removed two times and at last a tube is fixed by making a drain in the
body from brain to lower lumber region for purposes of water collected in
brain fluid removed from tube.
VI. Two teeth of the petitioner are broken out of which one is entered
into lungs of the petitioner. The petitioner has sustained grievous injuries
to his chest, due to which his heart is disturbed and not functioning as
prior to the accident and thereby the petitioner caused 30% permanent
disability in the heart.
VII. The petitioner sustained fracture to the base of C2 body with
fracture fragment displaced ante body. The fracture line extends into
right pedicle C3 and backwards involving post surface of G3 body with
mild C2C3 subsuxation. The uper vertebra of the vertebra column is
fractured, due to which the movements of the neck and back of the
petitioner are restricted and unable to move the neck and back, eat and
drink and thereby caused permanent disability in the neck to the extent of
30%.
VIII. In CT Scan of brain of the applicant biofrontal temporal significant
effusion seen. Right basifrontal lobe small low attenuated area suggest
minimal nonhaemorrhagic contusion.
IX. On 20.9.2004 operation performed – left fronto parietal peritoneal
shunt by surgeon Dr L. Singh.”
3. The claimant was initially admitted in General Hospital,
Amravati and then he was shifted to Yadgire Superspeciality Hospital,
Amravati and underwent treatment till 31.8.2004. He was then shifted
to CIMS Hospital, Nagpur and there he underwent treatment till
18.10.2004. It was the case of appellant before the Tribunal that for
medical treatment, his family had to spend Rs. 6,00,000/. During
treatment amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ was spent over special diet; Rs.
30,000/ towards travelling, lodging, boarding and autorickshaw
charges. He claimed Rs. 2,00,000/ on account of loss of amenities,
mental and physical shock, pain and sufferings etc.; Rs. 1,00,000/
towards loss of education; Rs. 1,00,000/ towards sport activities and Rs.
45,00,000/ towards future loss of earning. He claimed total
compensation of Rs. 56,30,000/, but it was restricted to Rs. 15,00,000/
with interest @ 10% per anum from the date of claim petition till
realization of claim.
4. It was the claim of claimant that he used to study in
electronic faculty in the College of Engineering at Badnera. He had bright
future, but due to the motor vehicle accident, he became totally bedridden
and all of his dreams were shattered as a result of multiple injuries
and fractures sustained by him. Claimant lost his physical capacity to
such an extent that he was unable to do any work without the aid or
assistance of another person. Thus, a dynamic and intelligent boy having
aspiration to become engineer upon whom his parents were also
dependent for their support during old age, but due to motor vehicle
accident, the claimant Pramod became so bedridden that his parents lost
their support of old age and on the contrary were made to look after bedridden
child which was very painful to them.
5. Driver as well as owner of the offending motor vehicle
(truck) remained absent while on behalf of the appellant Insurance
Company, Written Statement (exhibit 23) was filed. The Insurance
Company denied the contentions made as above including even age,
qualification and income of the claimant and the nature of injuries and
extent of permanent disability were all denied. The claim for
compensation was denied. According to Insurance Company, the driver
concerned was not holding effective driving licence as on the date and
time of the accident and due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle
the accident had occurred. According to the Insurance Company, the
claimant ought to have joined insurer of the motorcycle and driver
Prajwal More as party to the claim petition.
6. Learned Tribunal recorded finding that due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending Truck, accident occurred on 23.7.2004
in which claimant Pramod suffered injuries resulting into his permanent
disability. The Tribunal also held against the Insurance Company that
there was breach of policy condition. According to the Tribunal, owner
and Insurance Company of motorcycle were not necessary party driven
by Prajwal More. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs. 19,20,000/ to the claimant, as aforesaid.
Hence, this appeal.
7. On behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, the impugned
judgment and Award is criticized as illegal and highly inflated on the
ground that claimant Pramod was nonearning person, a student and
should have been reasonable award according to law.
8. Mr Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that there were three permanent disability certificates on record which
mentioned varying percentage of disability and the Tribunal ought to have
carefully and judiciously struck a balance to arrive at exact percentage of
disability from the three disability certificates varying in percentage of
disability. At the most, the Tribunal ought could have accepted disability
certificate which mentioned 52% as permanent disability incurred, but
wrongly adopted permanent disability of claimant as engineering student
as hundred percent which was not proved by doctor or surgeon. The
permanent disability certificate dated 3rd December 2007 also revealed
that claimant's condition will improve with passage of time and the
doctor had recommended fresh assessment of disability after five years.
Thus, there were prospects to reduce disability from 52% mentioned in it.
However, the Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of pecuniary as
well as nonpecuniary damages without applying its mind to the evidence
on record. Mr Chatterjee submitted that the three disability certificates on
record were not duly proved by evidence of expert or doctor and no
opportunity was extended to the Insurance Company to crossexamine
doctors and experts. Thus, according to him, the Tribunal committed
error to take into account various amounts claimed towards medical
expenses and medicinal bills without being duly proved in accordance
with law. Thus, he prayed that impugned judgment and award be set
aside as legally unsustainable. Mr Chatterjee relied on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and anr reported in
2011 ACJ 1.
9. In the ruling of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & anr (supra), the
Apex Court observed in paragraph 12 that the Tribunal should act with
caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did
not treat the injured but who give ‘ready to use’ disability certificates,
without proper medical assessment. The Apex Court expressed that there
are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the
injured, readily give liberal disability certificates to help the claimants.
However, at the same time, giving the aforesaid caution, the Honourable
Supreme Court stated thus :
“But where the disability certificates are given by duly
constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to
evidence regarding the genuiness of such certificates. The
Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the
evidence of the doctor who treated the injured or who
assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a
disability certificate or discharge certificate will not be proof
of the extent of disability stated therein unless the doctor who
treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed
the extent of disability of the claimant, is tendered for crossexamination
with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal
is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the
claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel
maintained by it in consultation with reputed local
hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such
Medical Board for assessment of the disability.”
10. According to Mr Chatterjee, the caution as well as the
procedure mentioned in paragraph 12 ought to have been followed by
learned Member of the Tribunal before arriving at just and proper amount
of compensation. Mr Chatterjee also has grievance that in the impugned
order, learned Member of the Tribunal gave perverse finding without
applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. According to
learned Tribunal, injured Pramod was on artificial feeding and supportive
system. To grant compensation for this treatment and feeding, the
Tribunal gave finding thus :
“For such treatment, feeding and after discharge also in
order to get recovery fast, the petitioner’s family might have
taken care to give him special diet and they might have spent
about Rs. 75,000/.”
This finding is based upon conjunctures merely on the basis of evidence
that for initial period, Pramod was on artificial feeding and supportive
system. Learned Member of the Tribunal continued to observe thus :
“If the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner is
considered and the fact that he is still bed ridden his pain and
suffering is beyond imagination. Though it cannot be
compensated in terms of money token amount of Rs.
1,00,000/ is just and proper. It has come on record that even
after period of five years reassessment of his physical
condition is necessary and it might be improved. It means in
future also medical treatment is necessary for petitioner. For
this, amount of Rs. 50,000/ is just and proper. Since Pramod
has sustained total disability he has lost his marriage
prospects. On that count he is entitled to get compensation
to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/. For the lost of expectation of
life considering the longevity he would have lived healthy life
if hewould not have met with the accident. He is entitled to
get Rs. 50,000/ for loss of expectation of life. Thus, the
petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 19,20,000/
from the respondents 1 to 3 with interest at the rate of 8%
P.A. from the date of application till realization....”
11. These observations made by the learned Member of the
Tribunal are vehemently criticized by learned counsel on the ground that
in such case when it was alleged that injured had received medical
treatment for his permanent disability which was assessed in respect of
various injuries received by the claimant, then various percentages were
given by doctor attending the patient at different stages of his treatment.
One of the certificates mentioning permanent disability to the extent of
52% also indicated chances of improvement in respect of the claimant.
Mr Chatterjee contended that all these relevant facts which could be
deposed by competent doctor ought to have been insisted upon by
learned Member of the Tribunal instead of giving baseless finding for
granting pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary damages on account of
compensation payable to the claimant by or on behalf of the insurer,
owner or driver of the offending motor vehicle. Mr Chatterjee, therefore,
in the light of ruling in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & anr (supra)
submitted that the proceedings in this case ought to be remanded back to
the Tribunal in order to comply with the general principles of law in
relation to grant of compensation in injury claim cases. Learned counsel
Mr Chatterjee made reference to observations of the Apex Court in Raj
Kumar ‘s case (supra) and summary of those general principle
mentioned in paragraph 19 of the ruling to argue that learned Member of
the Tribunal ought to have guided itself by the stated principles in order
to assess just and proper compensation payable to the claimant in the
present case. According to learned counsel, if doctor who attended the
injuredclaimant is required to depose before the Tribunal, appellant who
may be liable to pay compensation which may be awarded in such case,
must get reasonable and proper opportunity to crossexamine the doctor
concerned who gives opinion having bearing upon permanent disability.
According to learned counsel, as suggested by the Apex Court, learned
Tribunal may assess and ascertain percentage of permanent disability
suffered by the claimant, if necessary, by constituting a Medical Board of
doctors from the panel maintained by the Tribunal in consultation with
reputed local hospitals or medical colleges so that claimant can be
referred to Medical Board for assessment of percentage of permanent
disability of the injured claimant in order to grant just, fair and
reasonable compensation with reference to the percentage of disability
suffered permanently by him and on account of other pecuniary and nonpecuniary
grounds stated in the claim application.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/claimant
submitted that various percentages of permanent disability as evident
from exhibits 52, 54 and 67 ought to be read together to ascertain exact
percentage and on that basis, compensation must be granted. Learned
counsel for the claimant submitted that in such motorvehicle accident
cases which are to be heard by following summary procedure and
disposed of expeditiously, the evidence as in the case of a criminal trial is
not required, but learned tribunal having considered functional physical
disability of the claimant, various medical documents and bills on record,
rightly considered that claimant suffered permanent total disability and it
is submitted that claimant who was an engineering student of electronic
faculty with bright future prospects, ought to get fair and just
compensation with reference to his prospective losses in future apart from
reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by his parents for his medical
treatment, medicine and on account of heads of nonpecuniary damages
such as loss of marriage prospects, loss of pleasure and enjoyment in
future life, future medical treatment required so as to restore him as far as
possible back to the position in which he was, just prior to the incident of
motorvehicle accident. Learned counsel for claimant made reference to
the following rulings :
(1) Chitra Chintaman Kolekar & ors v. Govt of Maharashtra & anr
reported in 2014 ACJ 1317.
(2) Darshana Ganesh Kaavaje & ors v. MSRTC & ors reported in
2014 ACJ 882.
(3) APSRTC v. Shaik Yousuf Pasha reported in 2007 (5) ALD 439.
(4) Rajesh and ors v. Rajbir Singh and ors reported in 2013 ACJ
1403.
(5) Kavita v. Deepak & ors reported in 2012 (5) All MR 914 (SC).
(6) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shweta Dilip Mehta and ors
reported in 2011 ACJ 489.
(7) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheikh Rizwan and ors
(delivered by this Court in First Appeal No. 1501 of 2008 on 26th
September 2012).
(8) B. Ramulamma and ors v. Venkatesh Bus Union and anr
reported in 2011 ACJ 1702.
(9) Mr Shaikh Farooq Mohammad Gaouse v. The Transport
Manager reported in 2013 (3) All MR 509.
(10) HDFC Ergo v. Lalta Devi & ors reported in I (2015) ACC 927
(Del.).
13. All these rulings reflect principles for to assess just quantum
of compensation payable to the victim of accident or his dependents on
pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary grounds. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal is bound to consider binding judicial precedents cited in the light
of facts and circumstances brought on record so that just, fair and proper
compensation is granted to the claimant in motor accident claim.
Needless to state that quantum of compensation is required to be decided
bearing in mind the settled principles as well as guidelines from the
binding judicial precedents. The amount of compensation ought not to be
decided on the basis of conjectures and speculations, but must be based
upon sound judicial principles and guidelines and the evidence on record
as well as material disclosed in facts and circumstances of each case
whether it is the claim based on death of victim in motor vehicle accident
case or injuries received by victim in such accident case.
14. Looking to the Award passed in the present case, the
compensation awarded by learned Member of the Tribunal appears based
upon conjectures and bald speculations and possibility of claimant’s
family members that they might have taken care of claimant to give
special diet, might have spent certain amount etc. Thus, compensation is
granted without application of mind to the evidence on record and on
imaginary ground and finding being without evidence on record, is not
sustainable. Impugned Award is not generally based on settled legal
principles and guidelines from the judicial precedents. Impugned Award
is partly sustainable on the ground of undisputed fact that the accident
had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending
motor vehicle, a truck bearing registration number MH31/AP6855.
However, for decision as to quantum of compensation, I feel, when victim
had received serious injuries, required medical treatment over a long
time, his family members had to incur medical expenses over a long time
and probability of medical treatment in future as also nonpecuniary
damages on the ground such as loss of pleasure and pain; loss of marriage
prospects etc. and loss of income in future are all probabilities which will
have to be taken into consideration while arriving at just, fair and proper
award of compensation amounts payable to the claimant in such case.
Therefore, I consider the impugned judgment and award as unsustainable
on account of nonapplication of mind to fixation of just and proper
quantum of compensation only. Matter needs to be remanded for fresh
findings on issues no. 4 and 5 to enable the parties to adduce evidence as
they may choose and to enable the Tribunal to consider the entire
evidence to ascertain just, fair, reasonable compensation.
O R D E R
In the result, impugned judgment and award is maintained
on issue no. 1. It is set aside as far as findings on other issues are
concerned proceeding is remitted back with direction to the Tribunal to
take into consideration all the aspects like medical treatment undergone
by the claimant and also the one which would be required by him to
undergo in future; considering nature of injuries; loss of physical ability;
exact percentage of permanent or partial disability of the victim; loss of
prospects in life; loss of marital happiness and loss of pleasure etc. The
Tribunal shall permit the parties to lead additional evidence, if they so
deem fit and shall arrive at just, fair and proper quantum of compensation
on the basis of evidence led on record; principles and guidelines settled
through various judicial precedents. If any amount of compensation is
deposited by appellant with the Tribunal, the same shall be retained in the
fixed deposit, fetching maximum interest, with any nationalized bank till
the decision on merits in claim petition. Investment so directed shall be
subject to final decision in the case. Amount withdrawn by the claimants,
if any, shall be retained by them subject to final decision in the claim
petition. Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of with no order as
to costs.
A. P. BHANGALE, J
No comments:
Post a Comment