Judgment:
M.B. Vishwanath, J.
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant on merits.
2. This appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 29.10.1990 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. IX, Bangalore, in M.V.C.No. 749/86 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,06,000/- to the claimant-1st respondent.
3. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. It is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The claimant-respondent claimed Rs. 2,34,860/- as compensation.
4. The accident happened this way:
On 26.12.1985 at about 9.00 a.m. when the ten year old boy -claimant was crossing Bangalore - Sarjapura road from south to north, the lorry bearing No. TDQ 1266 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Consequently, the respondent-claimant sustained serious bodily injuries.
5. P.W.3 - Dr. Arun B. Kilpadi, Surgeon, at St. John's Medical College Hospital, has stated in his evidence that on 26.12.1985 the claimant came to the hospital with a history of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident and on examination he found the following injuries:
'1. Blunt injury to the abdomen.
2. Abrasions on the chest, abdomen, left shoulder and right elbow.
3. Fracture of 6th to 8th ribs on the right side and 3rd to 5th ribs on the left side.
4. Haemothorax on the right side.
5. Haemoitonium.
6. Right Retroparitoned heamotoma.
7. Fracture of the upper poles of the right kidney and separation of this segment from the rest of the kidney.
8. Contusion of the ascending colon calcium.
9. Lacerations of the right lobe of the liver.
10. Sub-congestive heamorrhage in the right eye.'
The doctor has stated in his evidence that on the day he was admitted at St. John's Medical College Hospital, surgery was done to the claimant for intra-abdominal injuries. The claimant was discharged on 12.1.1986. He has stated that the claimant has attended Out-patient department for follow up treatment on six occasions.
6. The doctor has stated in his evidence that he examined the claimant on 26.9.1990 and found that the claimant was in good health. He has made it abundantly dear that the claimant has lost one kidney permanently.
7. It is true that the Doctor has stated that the claimant can live a normal life with one kidney. In the same breath he has stated that in case of infection, disease or damage to the other kidney in the body it may prove to be fatal to his life. The Doctor has produced the case sheet - Ex.P.11 and X-rays - Ex.P. 12 to 18 pertaining to ribs and X-rays-Ex. P. 19 to 24 pertaining to urinary system. He has stated that the liver is functioning quite well.
8. From the evidence of the doctor, it is dear that as many as six ribs of the claimant have been damaged. It is further clear that the claimant has lost one kidney permanently.
9. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company that the doctor has stated that the claimant was in good health when he examined and that the petitioner can live a normal life with one kidney. As I have already stated, the Doctor has stated that in case of infection, disease or damage to the other kidney in the. body it may prove to be fatal to his life. As many as six ribs of the ten year old boy have been damaged. The claimant was inpatient for about 17 days and he has undergone surgery.
10. Apart from the doctor's say that in case of infection, disease or damage to the other kidney in the body it may prove to be fatal to the life of the claimant, future contingencies also should be borne in mind. The claimant has lost one kidney permanently. He was ten years old at the time of the accident. He is the son of an Accounts Officer. The claimant has to live all his life with only one kidney. If any prospective bride comes to know that the claimant has six damaged ribs and has only one kidney, I do not think that she will agree to marry the claimant. Thus it affects the marriage prospects also. The Tribunal has relied upon a decision reported in PHILLIPS v. LONDON SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (1879) 4 Q.B.D. p. 406 where in it has been laid down;
'You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable commonsense to bear and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation, once and for all. He has done no wrong; he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants, and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered.'
11. The Tribunal has relied upon another decision reported in BENHAM v. GAMBLING 1941(1) All ER 7 wherein it has been laid down that the Court should take:
'....An objective estimate of what kind of future on earth the victim might have enjoyed, whether he had justly estimated that future or not. The ups and downs of life, its pains and sorrows as well as its joys and pleasures all that makes up life's fitful fever -have to be allowed for in the estimate.'
12. In the decision of the Supreme Court reported in CONCORD INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., v. NIRMALA DEVI : [1979]118ITR507(SC) , it has been laid down
'The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.'
13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal bearing in mind that the claimant has to live with only one kidney and that six ribs have been damaged, I am of the opinion, is reasonable.
14. I reject the arguments of the Learned Counsel that the compensation awarded is on the high side. The learned Member of the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance. This is a reasonable figure.
15. For the aforesaid reason, the appeal is dismissed. No costs in this appeal.