Judgment:
B.K. Somasekhara, J.
1. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District in OP. No. 276/83 dated 4.7.1987 is in challenge wherein Rs. 500/-has been awarded by way of compensation for the three simple injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant due to the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 3.6.1983 at about 4.30 PM near Kodanpalli due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent. The lorry belongs to the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal has found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent. Putting the fixed liability on the 2nd respondent and the liability due to indemnity on the part of the 3rd respondent, the award was passed.
2. Mr. Raja Sripathi Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the testimony of the claimant herself about her inability to work t for atleast six months having due regard to the certain injuries could not have been actually noticed by the Doctor and even from the evidence on record, the Tribunal was wrong in awarding such a small amount of Rs. 500/- by way of compensation. It is his contention that even when a person suffers minor injuries or simple injuries, the after effects of the accident like shock, pain and loss of amenities of life in addition to loss of income cannot be ignored.
3. The injuries suffered by the claimant are noted in para 7 of the Judgment with the evidence of the Doctor as follows:
Dr. T.S. Murthy, who was examined on Commission shows that this particular injured Savaramma was examined by him on 3.6.1983 at about 5.30 PM and he found--
(i) a lacerated wound of 1' x 1/2' x 1/2' on the outer angle of the left eye. (ii) anabrasion of the size of 1/2'x1/2'over the medial side of the left elbow.
(ii) an abrasion of the size of 1/2'x1/2' on the outer side of the left fore arm. and the Doctor certified that all the injuries are simple.
No reasons are given as how Rs. 500/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration and proper assessment of the compensation.
4. Every accident follows shock pain and discomfort and depression on the part of the victim. The question, is not whether he/she suffers major or minor injuries. Even in case of minor injuries the amount of compensation for shock and pain cannot be less than Rs. 1000/-. Because even pain being the negative experience of the brain is classified to be an injury. Obviously shock and pain due to an accident would be an injury to the mental experience. The medical evidence does not indicate any disability suffered by the appellant. Inevitably the inference is that she was fully cured of such injuries. In the nature of the injuries supra, it ought to have been cured normally within 3-4 weeks or maximum six weeks. In other words, the claimant must have suffered pain, discomfort and consequences of such injuries for such a period. It is also possible that during that period she was prevented from working either by her own psychological setup or by certain consequences. Even among the minor injuries or simple injuries, comparison of W minor of the minor, minormost of the minor will be there. In the present case, only the first injury being a laceration on the left eye should be a serious one when compared to simple injuries on the left elbow and the left fore arm. Even a scratch on the eye lid or the eye is sufficient to disable the performance of its usual normal functions. The eye being a sensitive organ of the body, there will be a lot of pain and discomfort on the part of the victim. Normally per simple of the simple injuries, Rs. 500/- per injury should be awarded. If such a minor injury is little serious as distinguished above, it will be escalated to Rs. 1000/- per injury. When there is composite injury or bundle of such injuries fixed sum of compensation between Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 5000/- may be awarded. If any authority is needed in this regard, we have Bandaiah v. Lingaiah 1985 ACJ 746 wherein Rs. 3000/- was awarded for multiple abrasions suffered by the victim of the accident during 1980s. It should be atleast twice or thrice during the passage of time d uring 1990s. Even English Rulings have awarded simiar compensation, may in pounds or sterlings:
I (1) DALY (1982) CLY UNREPORTED, CA NO. 91
Man, 69, fractured rib and superficial wounds in an unpleasant and frightening accident when thrown off bus. On appeal 500 held not excessive.
(2) GRATTAN (1982) CLY 881
Man, 73, thrown down in bus, severe shock, bruising, sprain left shoulder residual effects upto 18 months 1,250.
(3) PURDIE 1984 SLT 303
Man, 70, minor fracture left foot and ankle sprain lasting upto six months 800.
(4) KEALEY (1983) 1 ALL.E.R. 973
- Man Age, fracture, small bone shoulder with residual ache bruised
ribs and thigh, off work for four months 550.
(5) MILLS (1984) 5 CL. UNREPORTED CA NO. 2
Man, soft tissue injury to leg off work six weeks but recurring pain over two years, 175 too low- for prolonged period of discomfort, increased on appeal to 350.
Even for slight or trivial injuries, 50 to 300 were awarded in the following cases: (1): GWILYM (1982) CLY 887
Women 52, thrown down by electric shock. Severe shock and resulting phobia of electricity, 300.
(2) CHRISTMAS (1983) CLY 1052
Man, 56 attacked by two Alsatians: One bit arm, the other clawed chest, Off work two weeks, 150.
(3) WHITEHEAD (1982) CLY UNREPORTED CA NO. 96
Injury to right calf bruised by bar--appeal that 50 too low dismissed.
(Quoted on pages 217 and 218 in DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEATH BY JOHN MUNKMAN 1985 - 7TH EDITION).
In substance it must be stated that any simple injury or minor injury cases, compensation should be awarded for pain and injuries themselves in addition to the loss of amenities of life. Although each injury may not be or cannot be valued, the sum total taking each injury into consideration may be given better results. Among the three injuries, for injury No. 1, obviously the compensation could not have been less than Rs. 3000/- and for injuries 2 and 3 it could not have beenlessthan Rs. 1000/- perinjury. As a whole, it is a fit case for awarding a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the claimant for the injuries suffered by her.
5. It may not be forgotten that any sort of injury suffered in an accident exposes the victim to anxieties which will drive them to some Doctor to get some treatment of any type suitable to the situation. Sometimes, it may be even homemade medicine. It is possible or probable that such a person would spend some amount towards medical expenses. It may depend upon the facts and circumstances of ^ each case. In a case like this, atleast a sum of Rs. 200/- towards medical and incidental expenses deserves to be awarded. Even from her own testimony also the appellant was prevented from doing regular work as labourer for some period, if not, for the total period she has stated. One should get over the pain and shock suffered due to the accident. Presuming mat she was out of employment for one month and fixing the daily wage at Rs. 10/-perday,thelossof income for one month cannot be less than Rs. 300/-. As a whole, the claimant deserves to be awarded a compensation of Rs. 5500/-. Thus, the amount under the award deserves to be escalated to the above extent.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and modified to the effect that the claimant shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5500 /- by way of compensation from the respondents, whose liability shall be joint and several, together with the costs of the proceedings and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. If any amount is paid /deposited, that shall be deducted. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.