Full Judgment
22. d November, 2012 Pronounced on:
27. h November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 642/2011 TINA JAIN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv. versus SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. with Mr. Sanjeet Raman, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,32,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16.02.2010.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurer, the finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal has attained finality.
3. After the accident, the Appellant was removed to Rajendra Hospital, Sikandrabad, U.P. After first aid, she was shifted to St. Stephens Hospital where she remained admitted from 16.02.2010 to 24.02.2010. The Appellant suffered fracture of nasal bone and jaw. She was operated upon for alignment of the bones and teeth. The teeth were tightened by Dental braces. She was again admitted on 29.03.2010 to the hospital for removal of wires and further alignment of the bones and was discharged from the hospital on 01.04.2010.
4. The Appellant claimed that she spent a sum of `1,50,000/- on treatment. She could not attend to her work for six months and engaged a maid servant on a salary of `3,500/- per month. She stated that she spent a sum of `10,000/- on conveyance and `30,000/- on special diet.
5. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `1,32,000/- which is tabulated hereunder:Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by this Court No.
1. `65,000/- 2. Conveyance and Special Diet (without bills) ` 15,000/- 3. Medical Bills ` 38,000/- 4. Attendant Charges for 4 months @ `3,500/per month ` 14,000/- Total 6. Pain and Suffering ` 1,32,000/- The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:(i) The Appellants face was disfigured. She was not granted any compensation on account of disfigurement. (ii) The compensation of `65,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering and lumpsum compensation of `15,000/- towards conveyance and special diet is on the lower side. (iii) 7. The award of interest @ 7.5% per annum was on the lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company urges that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
8. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was proved that the Appellant suffered multiple fractures on her nasal bone and jaw. Her testimony that after the surgeries she was put on liquid diet and her face was bandaged was not challenged. Her testimony that her face has become ugly and there are visible marks on her face was also not challenged in cross-examination.
9. The Appellant has not specified the period for which she had been put on liquid diet or on special diet. She remained admitted in the hospital for a period of eight days in the first instance and three days on the second occasion. In the circumstances, the award of compensation of `15,000/towards conveyance and special diet was just and reasonable.
10. It is difficult to measure in terms of money the pain and suffering which is suffered by the claimant on account of serious injuries caused to her in a motor accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim of a motor accident. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the parts of the body where the injuries were sustained; surgeries (if any) underwent by the victim; confinement in the hospital and the duration of the treatment.
11. The Appellant suffered injuries on her nose resulting into multiple fractures of nasal bone and jaw. She must have suffered immense pain for several days and thereafter when the braces were removed and the bone realignment at the time of readmission in the hospital. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and the treatment, the sum of `65,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be niggardly or on the lower side which appears to be just and reasonable.
12. On the date of the accident, the Appellant was a young woman of 28 years. She ought to have been awarded some compensation towards disfigurement of her face. In my endeavour to award just compensation, I make a provision of `75,000/- towards disfigurement.
13. No other contention has been raised. Consequently, there is enhancement in the compensation awarded by `75,000/-. RATE OF INTEREST 14 It may be noted that the Claims Tribunal awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum. This accident took place in the year 2010. Rate of interest on long-term deposit in the year 2010 were in the vicinity of 9% per annum. In Smt. Dhaneshwari & Anr. v. Tejeshwar Singh & Ors., (MAC.APP. 997/2011) decided on 19.03.2012, this Court held as under:
70. Rate of interest were in double digits in 1980s and 1990s. The interest rate started falling at the beginning of this century. They started rising and firming up since 2007. Since the rate of interest on long term deposit is now about 9% per annum, it is unreasonable to award interest @ 7.5% per annum to the victims of the motor accident.
15. In the circumstances, the Appellant ought to have been awarded interest @ 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
16. The enhanced compensation and the interest as awarded shall be deposited by the Respondent No.3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks and shall be released to her (the Appellant) on deposit.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
18. Pending Applications stands disposed of. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 27 2012 vk