Mr. Pramod Mishra Vs. Mr. Pradip and Other - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
a) the case dealt with permanent disability in entitlement of interest under sections 110-cc, 110-d & 110-b of the motor vehicles act, 1939 - it was observed under sections 171, 173 & 168, that appellant was given more that what he established and supplementary support from his company effect by the mactb) the case focused on permanent disability in compensation under sections 110-d, 110-b & 110-cc of the motor vehicles act, 1939 - it was observed that appellant was given more that what he established and supplementary support from his company effect by the mact - hence there was no reason in complaining - the appeal was for enhancement, hence the interest was awarded by the fac - the second appeal was made on the medical expense incurred by the appellant at abroad and in vellore - however the expenses were not proved - hence it was found that there was no ground for enhancement - under sections 173, 168 & 171 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, the interest was awarded at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of awardc) the case debated on permanent disability in compensation under sections 110-d, 110-b of the motor vehicles act, 1939, in relevance to the accident victims - it was required that the courts were to award in regard to their pain and suffering - it was also observed that the courts should determine the compensation in regards to prescribed methods and guidelines - it was ruled that all depended on the facts and instances of each case and the way the claimant had set up his case to substantiate his claim - - he also complains that tribunal had failed to award any compensation to him for his treatment at vellore and switzerland from 11.3.1980 to 30.9.1980. his additional grievance is that tribunal had only awarded him rs. thereforee, he had no reason to complain. it had not awarded him for treatment at switzerland and vellore because he had failed to prove the medical expenses on this count on record. the same holds good about his claim for engaging attendant and his wages.orderkhan, (j) 1. appellant was working as, a branch manager in tata steel company drawing a salary of rs.2,700/- per month plus allowances. he was riding his motor cycle, when a bus no.dlp-6928 knocked him down on 1.12.1978. he is said to have suffered multiple fractures and his left leg was also amputated later. 2. appellant filed claim suit no.314/79 claiming compensation of rs.8.85 lakhs on the plea that he was operated upon 23 times in india and abroad and remained hospitalised for 10 months or so. mact on appreciation of evidence on record awarded him a compensation of rs.3,49,792/- by award dated 29.5.1986 but without any interest which was made payable by respondent insurance company despite its plea of limited liability of rs.50,000/-. 3. appellant felt dissatisfied and filed fao no.214/86 for enhancement of the compensation. first appellate court admitted his appeal only on the point of interest and later dismissed it by order dated 3.4.1987 on noticing that his company had paid his medical expenses including his treatment at switzerland and the compensation awarded to him was sufficient in the circumstances of the case. 4. appellant has filed in this appeal now again demanding higher compensation. his case is that he deserved to be awarded more because he could not do without a personal attendant who was to look after him through out his life and on whom he had to spend around rs.600/- per annum. he also complains that tribunal had failed to award any compensation to him for his treatment at vellore and switzerland from 11.3.1980 to 30.9.1980. his additional grievance is that tribunal had only awarded him rs.50,000/- as general damages despite his permanent disability ignoring the supreme court dictum that a disabled claimant required damages for his mental, physical pain and suffering in present and future and to compensate him for loss of amenities of life etc. he claims compensation of rs.3 lakhs on this account. he also relies upon yet another judgment of supreme court in muthaiah sekhar vs . nesamony transport corporation ltd. and another : air1998sc3064 to urge that treatment taken abroad was permissible and was to be compensated. he also refers to one more judgment of the supreme court in nagesha vs . m.s.krishna and another : (1997)8scc349 to show that apex court had awarded rs.6 lakhs compensation to a 23 year old person who had suffered permanent disability and rs.4.58 lakhs to a 17 year old boy for shortening of his leg by three inches in shashendra lahiri vs . unicef and others : (1997)11scc446 . he now demands rs.8.85 lakhs compensation on this anology.5. it goes without saying that accident victims incurring permanent disability deserved to be awarded compensation liberally and the courts were required to give regard to their pain and suffering. but courts were at the same time required to determine compensation according to prescribed methods and guidelines. moreover it all depended upon the facts and instances of each case and how the claimant had set up his case to substantiate his claim. 6. in the present case mact had given appellant more than what he had established. thereforee, he had no reason to complain. it had not awarded him for treatment at switzerland and vellore because he had failed to prove the medical expenses on this count on record. the same holds good about his claim for engaging attendant and his wages. 7. moreover tribunal award had to be read in the context of the accident dating back to 1978 and also appellant getting supplementary support from his company. thereforee, all told it cannot be said that compensation awarded was inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. even so appellant ought not to have been deprived of interest on the compensation amount. merely because adequate compensation amount was awarded to him. it was understandable if it was refused because of his default or any delay caused by him in prolonging disposal of his petition. but it could not be declined merely because appellate court had felt that he was compensated liberally. it is by and large a general practice now to award interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as per supreme court verdicts to take care of the delayed relief granted to accident victims. thereforee, there is no reason why appellant should also not be given this benefit. we accordingly grant 12% p.a. interest on the compensation amount from the date of his filing of claim petition till the date of award. 9. respondent insurance company is directed to work-out the amount and satisfy the remaining award within four months from the date of application.

Judgment:
ORDER

Khan, (J)

1. Appellant was working as, a Branch Manager in Tata Steel Company drawing a salary of Rs.2,700/- per month plus allowances. He was riding his motor cycle, when a bus No.DLP-6928 knocked him down on 1.12.1978. He is said to have suffered multiple fractures and his left leg was also amputated later.

2. Appellant filed claim Suit No.314/79 claiming compensation of Rs.8.85 lakhs on the plea that he was operated upon 23 times in India and abroad and remained hospitalised for 10 months or so. MACT on appreciation of evidence on record awarded him a compensation of Rs.3,49,792/- by award dated 29.5.1986 but without any interest which was made payable by respondent Insurance Company despite its plea of limited liability of Rs.50,000/-.

3. Appellant felt dissatisfied and filed FAO No.214/86 for enhancement of the compensation. First Appellate Court admitted his appeal only on the point of interest and later dismissed it by order dated 3.4.1987 on noticing that his Company had paid his medical expenses including his treatment at Switzerland and the compensation awarded to him was sufficient in the circumstances of the case.

4. Appellant has filed in this appeal now again demanding higher compensation. His case is that he deserved to be awarded more because he could not do without a personal attendant who was to look after him through out his life and on whom he had to spend around Rs.600/- per annum. He also complains that Tribunal had failed to award any compensation to him for his treatment at Vellore and Switzerland from 11.3.1980 to 30.9.1980. His additional grievance is that Tribunal had only awarded him Rs.50,000/- as general damages despite his permanent disability ignoring the Supreme Court dictum that a disabled claimant required damages for his mental, physical pain and suffering in present and future and to compensate him for loss of amenities of life etc. He claims compensation of Rs.3 lakhs on this account. He also relies upon yet another judgment of Supreme Court in Muthaiah Sekhar Vs . Nesamony Transport Corporation Ltd. and another : AIR1998SC3064 to urge that treatment taken abroad was permissible and was to be compensated. He also refers to one more judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagesha Vs . M.S.Krishna and another : (1997)8SCC349 to show that Apex Court had awarded Rs.6 lakhs compensation to a 23 year old person who had suffered permanent disability and Rs.4.58 lakhs to a 17 year old boy for shortening of his leg by three inches in Shashendra Lahiri Vs . UNICEF and others : (1997)11SCC446 . He now demands Rs.8.85 lakhs compensation on this anology.

5. It goes without saying that accident victims incurring permanent disability deserved to be awarded compensation liberally and the Courts were required to give regard to their pain and suffering. But Courts were at the same time required to determine compensation according to prescribed methods and guidelines. Moreover it all depended upon the facts and instances of each case and how the claimant had set up his case to substantiate his claim.

6. In the present case MACT had given Appellant more than what he had established. thereforee, he had no reason to complain. It had not awarded him for treatment at Switzerland and Vellore because he had failed to prove the medical expenses on this count on record. The same holds good about his claim for engaging attendant and his wages.

7. Moreover Tribunal award had to be read in the context of the accident dating back to 1978 and also Appellant getting supplementary support from his company. thereforee, all told it cannot be said that compensation awarded was inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Even so appellant ought not to have been deprived of interest on the compensation amount. merely because adequate compensation amount was awarded to him. It was understandable if it was refused because of his default or any delay caused by him in prolonging disposal of his petition. But it could not be declined merely because Appellate Court had felt that he was compensated liberally. It is by and large a general practice now to award interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as per Supreme Court verdicts to take care of the delayed relief granted to accident victims. thereforee, there is no reason why Appellant should also not be given this benefit. We accordingly grant 12% p.a. interest on the compensation amount from the date of his filing of claim petition till the date of award.

9. Respondent Insurance Company is directed to work-out the amount and satisfy the remaining award within four months from the date of application.