Devi Prasad Singh and Satish Chandra, JJ.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.
Present appeal has been preferred u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against the impugned award dated 22.7.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IInd Additional District Judge, Faizabad) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 6 of 2002.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:
The appellant suffered an accident with Jeep No. U.P.-32 Z-5939 on 10.4.2001 at 4.30 evening in district Barabanki near Mayur Hotel because of careless and negligent driving of the jeep driver. The appellant suffered serious multiple injuries resulting into fracture of chest and backbone alongwith other minor injuries. Because of injuries caused in the said accident, the appellant has become permanently disabled and lost his capacity to move on his own leg.
The appellant, being permanently disabled and paraplegic on account of injury and being permanently incapacitated, approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and claimed compensation. The Tribunal recorded a finding that though the appellant had become permanently disabled but he can read and write in a sitting position. According to the Tribunal, the appellant had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 65,000 and for mental pain and agony, he suffered a loss of Rs. 35,000. On account of permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1 lac as compensation. Thus, the Tribunal assessed and granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lac to the appellant.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the alleged inadequate compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellant approached this Court by preferring the present appeal u/s 173 of the Act.
4. The submission of the appellant''s counsel is that since the appellant has become permanently disabled, he is entitled for compensation in view of the provision contained in Sections 141 and 142 of the Act. It has also been submitted that the appellant had obtained voluntary retirement from the service since he was not in a position to move on his own leg. It has further been submitted that at the time of accident, the appellant''s salary was Rs. 8,151 per month, which was later on increased to Rs. 10,944. However, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that at the time of accident, the salary of the appellant was Rs. 8,151.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in spite of the petitioner''s disability, he is capable of reading and writing. He has also not lost his curricular power. It has also been submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court in appeal.
6. We have considered the arguments, advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has become permanently disabled. The learned Tribunal too has recorded a finding that the appellant has become permanently disabled. The insurance company-respondent has not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned award. Accordingly, so far as finding of fact is concerned, it attains finality. The question, cropped up, is only with regard to the quantum of compensation.
8. Sub-section (1) of Section 140 of the Act deals with the right to claim compensation on account of death or permanent disablement of any person because of accident. Section 141 provides that the right to claim compensation u/s 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to other right, except the right to claim under the scheme referred to in Section 163A. For convenience, Sections 140 and 141 are reproduced as under:
140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. - (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicle shall, jointly or severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of [fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of [twenty-five thousand rupees].
(3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation of relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this Section or u/s 163A.
141. Provisions as to other right to claim compensation for death or permanent disablement.-(1) The right to claim compensation u/s 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to [any other right, except the right to claim under the scheme referred to in Section 163A (such other right hereafter] in this Section referred to as the right on the principle of fault) to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force.
(2) A claim for compensation u/s 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and where compensation is claimed in respect of such death or permanent disablement u/s 140 and also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation u/s 140 shall be disposed of as aforesaid in the first place.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) where in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation u/s 140 is also liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable shall pay the first mentioned compensation and:
(a) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is less than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to the first mentioned compensation) only so much of the second-mentioned compensation as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the first mentioned compensation;
(b) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is equal to or more than the amount of second-mentioned compensation, he shall not be liable to pay the second-mentioned compensation.
9. Keeping in view the statutory provision, contained in Sections 140 and 141 of the Act, it is evident that so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is no difference of criteria to assess the compensation with regard to death or permanent disablement. Whether died or permanently disabled on account of an accident, the quantum of compensation may be assessed on the same principles without any difference ; rather in the event of permanent disablement, the amount of compensation may be more than the amount, which may be assessed on account of death. In case a person survives on account of an accident and has become permanently disabled, then there should be an addition of the expenses for medical expense and mental pain and agony, which will be much more with the person who died in an accident.
10. In the present case, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 65,000 in lieu of medical expenses and Rs. 35,000 for mental pain. We feel that the amount of compensation in lieu of medical expenses and mental pain does not call for any, interference by this Court.
11. However, there is one other aspect of the matter. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the date of birth of the appellant was recorded as 17.1.1955 in the service record. Accordingly, at the time of accident the appellant''s age was about 46 years. Under Second Schedule of the Act, if a person who is aged about 46 years dies in an accident, the multiplier of 13 should be applied. Since the appellant''s salary at the time of accident was about Rs. 8,151 and odd and in case 1 /3rd of the amount is reduced in lieu of expenses, the appellant''s net monthly salary shall come around Rs. 5,400. Keeping in view the round figure, it comes to Rs. 5,000 and the annual income will come to Rs. 60,000. In case the multiplier of 13 is used, the total compensation shall come to Rs. 7,80,000. By adding Rs. 1 lac in lieu of medical expenses and mental pain agony, the total entitlement of the appellant shall be Rs. 8,80,000. Accordingly, we assess the total entitlement of compensation of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 8,80,000.
12. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a case in
In the instant case, the appellant has been awarded Rs. 94,037 as expenses incurred on medical care, Rs. 20,000 for special diet and expenses for attendant during treatment. For his becoming permanently disabled and paraplegic on account of the injury and damages caused to his spinal cord, the appellant who admittedly has been held permanently incapacitated has been granted only Rs. 1,00,000. We are of the opinion that the appellant was right in claiming his income at Rs. 2,000 per month while working with his father at the time of accident and even if we apply the multiplier of 16, he is entitled to the claim of Rs. 3,84,000 on account of loss of expectation to life besides disappointment, frustration and mental stress particularly when he has to keep a permanent attendant to look after him in his rest of life. Adding this amount to the amount of Rs. 1,14,000, to which the appellant has rightly been held entitled on account of expenses incurred on medical care and for the pain suffering during the period of treatment, the appellant is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,98,000 which we round up to Rs. 5,00,000 inclusive of cost of litigation. The aforesaid amount is liable to be paid by the respondent-insurance company as was held by the High Court.
13. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the lower multiplier should be used while awarding compensation in the event of permanent disability but we are of the view that the permanent disablement is a more serious event than death. A person who is permanently disabled suffer mental pain agony, and humiliation throughout his or her life apart from incurring medical expenses on day-to-day basis. In the present age, the joint family system is gradually breaking down. The remedy available in law in the form of compensation should be construed in a positive manner, so that the permanently disabled person may be compensated, as far as possible to lead a life without depending on others.
14. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in the manner indicated hereinabove. The appellant shall be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,80,000. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
No order as to costs.
