Back
1977 Supreme(Goa) 7
Goa High Court
TITO MENEZES, J.C.
Namdev Ramchandra Nagvenkar - Appellant
Versus
Miss Carmina Jose Gloria Thelma Matias - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1976
Decided On : 28 July 1977
M.E. Rao, for Appellant; L.C. Gama (for No. 1), Emerico Afonso (for No. 2) and M. A. Redcar (for No. 3), for Respondents.
The compensation awarded for bodily injury, pain, mental shock, etc., must be just and take into account the claimant's age, the severity of the injuries, and the impact that the injuries will have on the claimant's life and earning capacity.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 110-B - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - PRINCIPLES - LOSS OF ARM - CLAIMANT A 34 YEAR OLD UNMARRIED WOMAN - HELD, COMPENSATION OF RS. 22,500 AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL FOR BODILY INJURY, PAIN, MENTAL SHOCK, ETC., NOT EXCESSIVE.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a 34-year-old unmarried woman, suffered the amputation of her left arm as a result of a motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the appellant. The Tribunal awarded her compensation of Rs. 25,000, which was challenged by the appellant on the ground that it was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the award of the Tribunal, holding that the compensation awarded for bodily injury, pain, mental shock, etc., was not excessive. The Court noted that the claimant was a young woman who had lost her arm, which would have a significant impact on her life and earning capacity.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for bodily injury, pain, mental shock, etc., was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not excessive, considering the claimant's age, the severity of her injuries, and the impact that the loss of her arm would have on her life and earning capacity. The Court also noted that the Tribunal had taken into account the claimant's contributory negligence in arriving at the award.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award of the Tribunal.
2. Shortly stated the case of the respondent No. I/claimant before the Tribunal, is that on 29-11-71 she was travelling from old Goa to Panjim in the bus belonging to the respondent No. 2, driven by the appellant and insured by the third respondent. The bus was overloaded and was travelling at an excessive speed. It grazed and collided against a lamp post. She suffered serious injuries on the left arm, which necessitated its amputation. The claimant suffered as a result of the accident, physical injury, physical and mental suffering, the incurring of medical expenses, loss of property and of employment and so on. The claim was assessed at Rs. 78,000.
3. The defence of the appellant was that he was not driving in a rash and negligent manner and there was no negligence whatsoever on his part; that the injury caused was exclusively due to the negligence of the claimant; that in any event the injury and loss sustained by the claimant were not caused by any rash or negligent driving by the driver; and, alternatively, that the amount awarded as compensation to the claimant was excessive.
4. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver was rash and negligent, but there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. He also came to the finding that the claimant did suffer loss of arm and other injury as a result of the accident. He therefore awarded the amount of Rs. 25,000 as compensation payable by the driver and the second and third respondents to the claim.
5. As the liability of the respondent No. 3 was limited to Rs. 5,000 and the third respondents appeared before me through their advocate Shri M. A. Redcar, but did not contest the award. The second respondent did not file any appeal against the award but had been represented before me by Advocate Emerico Afonso and has joined the driver in contesting the award.
6. The claimant, who is the respondent No. 1 before me, has stated before the Tribunal that on 29-11-71 at about 12.30 afternoon she boarded the bus in question; that there were many people waiting for the bus at the bus stand; that the bus was travelling at a reckless speed which, according to her assessment, was between 50 to 60 m. p. h.; that she knows to drive a car; that she has been driving a car for about 8 years prior to the accident; that she produced a driving license issued to her by Uganda Government in 1955. The licence was taken on record and marked Exh. A-1. She further stated that she was sitting on the left side near the window of the bus; that when the bus reached Ribandar Pato something of metal hit her left arm; that at the time of the accident, she was praying the rosary; that she had the rosary in her hands and her hands were on her lap; that after the impact she became unconscious; that she recovered consciousness in the hospital of the Goa Medical College, Panaji; that her arm was amputated near the shoulder; that she had to remain in the hospital for two months; that she continued treatment as an out-door patient for another three weeks; that when she was in the hospital she was submitted to two operations, one of the amputation and the other one for the grafting of the skin; that under the recommendation of the Goa Medical College she went to the Artificial Limb Centre at Poona; that she produced the letter of recommendation given by Dr. S. V. Nadkarni; that the letter was taken on record as Exh. A-2; that she approached the said Centre and was supplied with an artificial limb; that on hot days the use of the artificial limb becomes unbearable; that she had returned to Goa on the 2nd January, 1970 and remained in Goa thereafter; that her mother was at the time of the deposition in London; that at the time of the accident her mother was in Uganda and f
