Back
2013 Supreme(AP) 1211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
M. Ramchandar - Appellants
Vs.
P. Rakesh - Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. No. 145 of 2011
Decided On: 06.12.2013
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P.S.P. Suresh Kumar
For Respondents/Defendant: B.V. Madhava Reddy and V. Durga
The compensation awarded by the Court below was inadequate and required enhancement.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - JUST COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - MEDICAL EXPENSES - LOSS OF EARNINGS - PAIN AND SUFFERANCE - RATE OF INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained. The Court below awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the compensation awarded by the Court below was inadequate and required enhancement. The Court considered the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the medical expenses incurred, the loss of earnings, and the pain and sufferance undergone by the appellant. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant was a medical officer in Government service and had incurred the medical expenses from his own pocket.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Court below was just and required interference by the Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the compensation awarded by the Court below was not just and required enhancement. The Court considered the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the medical expenses incurred, the loss of earnings, and the pain and sufferance undergone by the appellant. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant was a medical officer in Government service and had incurred the medical expenses from his own pocket. The Court held that the compensation awarded by the Court below was inadequate and required enhancement.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the Award of the Court below on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 65,000/- and by increasing the rate of interest from 7% to 714% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
1. The appellant who is none other than the claimant of the claim petition in O.P. No. 1770 of 2005 filed against the respondents owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Court below') granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum out of claim of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) filed this appeal by claiming enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the appeal by allowing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri B. Venkata Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. V. Durga, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2.
2(a). The contentions in the grounds of appeal in the nutshell are that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court below is utterly low, unjust and requires interference not only the claim of compensation as prayed for but also rate of interest, hence to allow the appeal as prayed for.
2(b) It is the contention of 2nd respondent-insurer in opposing the claim that the Court below itself awarded reasonable compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the fracture of the right leg tibia with bone debridement, the only injuries sustained by the claimant including for the period of treatment undergone and rightly rejected the medical bills of ayurvedic treatment for not supported by prescriptions of doctor even the claimant being a medical officer having knowledge and is in Government service, it cannot be considered and hence to dismiss the appeal.
3. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Court below is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?
2. To what result?
POINT-1:
4. The facts of the case as proved before the Court below and not in dispute in this appeal, are that on 25.03.2004 the petitioner and his wife were proceeding towards Pargi, Ranga Reddy District on his motor cycle and when they reached near the outskirts of Nandarpur Village, Pargi Mandai, one tanker bearing No. AP 12 U 3141 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result, both of them fell down and the claimant sustained multiple fractures and injuries and shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment which occurrence is proved by PW.1's evidence with reference to Ex.A1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 118 of 1996 and Ex.A2 charge sheet is rightly concluded by the Tribunal. Thus, it is only the quantum dispute.
5. Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, it is apt to mention the famous quote of Lord Morris that, perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly 1963 (2) All.E.R. 432, remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver 1969 (1) All. E.R. 555 observed that to compensate
