HIGH GGLJRT 6F CHHATT!SG;QRH AT BILASPUR DiwSlON BENCH SGRAM: HGN‘BLE SHRI MJ‘EEV GUPTA, CJ. %€QE‘4’3%..E SHR? SUN”. KUMAR SINHA, J. i ‘ > Appeimnt ,, u; Misc, Appaa! No‘538 of 2W3 Sudeep Kumar Gupta, ‘ S/o DrRamesh Kumar Gupia, aged about 20 years, Resident of main Road, Mungeli Naka Kududand, Biiaspur Tahsil 8: Distt Biiaspur {CG} §ER$US i @égnemems Badfi Singh ThakurgS/O Late Chabi I La! Singh (Truck Owner) Residencie r of Tilaknagar, BHaspur, Tah’ & Distt DHESWJT DH (Cu; f‘\ On behalf of s‘aspondent No.1 (Dead) Oniy one successor, Smt Kama§a 'Singh, SO’yeara W/o Shri Manohar Singh Residem sf T§§ak Nagar,' Bifaspur (CG) Bahcrik Ram Yadav, @ Bohri Ram Yada’v', Sic Late Yadav aged abaut 23 years (Truck Driyer) Residence 9f Viiiage Pendridih Peiice Station Him TahSi! Bima, Disti. Biiaspur (CG) The Naw india insurance Co. Limited through Branch Manager, Branch Office Rajendra Nagar, Biiaepur (CG) mm MIS€1 APPEAL UNDER SECTEQN W3 OF THE MG?§R \iEHiCLEg AQT. 1933 i i Pneeeni: Shri MK. Baeg, ceunsei forthe appellant. Shri Anant Baip-ai, scansei fer respondents N031 & 2 Shri Shreekumar Agravisai Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupia, ceunsel fer respendeni No.3. "'7 'l QREER {25th February, 2M1) The fQHOWing order of the Court waS paased by Rajeev Gupta; CJ‘ This is Claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarderj by the Fifth Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai; Biiaspur (for short ‘the Tribunai‘) vide award dated 4 2%.D22003) passed in Claim Cane No.67/2001. 2) As against the compenoation of R31 ;04;76;324/- claimed by appeiiant! ciair‘nan’t Sudeep Kumar Gupta, by fiiing a ctaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act for the injuries isustained by him in the motor accident on 21 1.2.2000, the Tribunai awarded a total slim of Rs.5,25,a0i3f— as compensation along with inteteet @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petitien till the date of actuat payment 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before ii it held that claimant Sudeep Kumar Gupta sustained ‘muttiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 21.12.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicte Truck - Dumper bearing registration No.CIP.l./6617; as the above offending vehicle Truck - i bumper on the date of the accident Was insured with the New lndia l‘lnsurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not testabtish any breach _of the policy conditions, the insurance tCompany was liable to pay compensation to the ctatmant. l i r l l l i 1‘4) As the respondents have noi fiied any apgeai against the ‘award, 1 the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now iattained finaiity. \ J $ ‘ ‘; The Tribunal considering ihe number and nature of the 1 i iinjuries i proved to have been sustained by the Claimant in the motor iaocideni' i the fact thai the injuriee and fractures sustained by the {eiaiment in the motor encicient ted to amputation of his left ieo beiow knee and the amount proved to have been spent on hie treatment, awarded Rs.2,?0,000z‘- towards permanent disabiiity on account of the‘amputation of his left ieg below knee: Rsrt 00 000/— l tor physical pain and mental suffering, Re 5D OOOf— towards medicai expensee Rs 50 OOOI- towards permanent disfiguratton of his left leg; RS.SO,GOOI— towards attendant; and Rs.5,000I- for conveyance. lThe Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.5,25,0QO/- as mpensation to the ciaimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor aocrdent The Tribunat further directed payment of intereet on the above amount or oomoensation of Rs 25 UGO/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the r date of aotuat payment. i 6) Shri MK. Baeg, teamed oounsei for the appellant submitted lthat the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards l a artificial limb, which the\claimant was required to get on account of l gamputation of his ieft ieg below Knee; anafjn awarding tow l compensation of Rs.5,25;000!- oniy. .3 7) Shri Shreekumar AgrawaL ieamed Senior Counsel with Shri x Anand Gupta, iearned Gounsei for respondent No.3 the ‘New India Insurance Campany Limited, on the '0ther hand, supportgd the % i award and contended that as the daimant at the time of the accident was a studwt and was not having any independent income, the compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and'propa compensation in the facts and ‘ Circumstances of the present cases 8) Shri Anant Baipai; teamed counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 also supported the award. .9) Claimant Sudeep Kumar Gupta on the date of the accident ‘3 was aged about 20 years. At the relevant time; he was a student of i t2?“ standard. . Hie father Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta was a doctor in ‘ Government Hospital. Admittedly, part of the medicai expenses ; incurred by the claimant and his father were reimbursed by the Government as the father of the otaimant was in Government r l service. ’The iniurles and fractures sustained by the claimant in the i motor accident led to amputation of his left leg below knee is not in dispute before us. On account of the amputation of his ieft leg, the ‘ciaimant would suffer physioatiy and mentally for whole of his remaining life. The amputation of his left leg below knee is hound it to adversely affect the matrimonial prospects of the appeilant. tO) On due considefation of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident; and the l , t I i i I i i i i i i: l V i l i i i i l i i i amount J proved to have been spent on treatment; the fact that part pf the medicai expenses were reimbursed by the Government, we ere satisfied that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards lose of future earning capacity; medical expenses; pain and suffering; attendant; conveyance etcr are just and proper. M) Nevertheiess, the Tribune! has certainty erred in not awarding any sum towards artificial limb which the claimant was required to get on account of the amputation of his left teg below knee. The Apex Court in somewhat simitar situation in the case of ‘ Nagappa \is. .Gurudayai Singh and others, repOtteol in AtR 2%3- SC $45 observed : ”To an agriculturist; loss of leg vitaily affects not only his working capacity, but atso his' livelihood. However, it is to be clearly understood that MV Act does not provide for passing of further award after final award is passed. Therefore, in a case'where injury to .a victim requires periodical medicai expenses. fresh award cannot be gassed or previous award cannot be reviewed when the medicat expenses are incurred after finalization of the compensation proceedings. Hence, only alternative is that at the time of passing of final award, Tribunal/Court should consider such eventuality and fix compensation accordingly. No one can suggest that it is improper to take into account expenditure genuinely and reasonably required to be incurred for future medical expenses. Further medical expenses required to be incurred can be determined only on the basis of fair guess-work after taking into account /‘, n‘‘e. increase in the cast of medicai treatment. Therefore, it wouid be difficult t0 ’hcaid that fcar future medical expenses which are required to be ineurred by a‘ victim, freeh award could be passed. However, for such medical ireatment, Couri has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the baeie of the eyidenoe brought on record. in the preeent case, it has been pointed eut that for reptecing the artificial leg every ' two to three years.“ appellant would be required to have some sort at operation and also change the artificiat leg. At that time; the eetimated expenses for ,this were Rs.18,GOO/— and the High Court has awarded the said amount. For change of artificlai leg every two or three years no compensation is awarded. Considering this aspect, Re. one lac awarded as an additional compensation, to meet the said expenses from the interest of the said amount. Equally, it is true that the said amount is required to be properly invested on iong~term basis so that recurring medical expenses could be met. The said amount shall be deposited by the insurance Company with the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to invest the said amount on long term fixed deposit in a nearest nationalized bank, in the area where the appellant is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance and the interest on the said amount wili be paid annually, directly to the claimant till he survives. However, on an application by the appellant this condition could :Ibe modified by-sthe Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appeliant. Finally, after the death of the appellant, the amount be disbursed to his legal heirs on their application. The aforesaid condition is imposed so as to see that appellant does not find it difficult to meet periodical medieal expensee as requiied by him. “ The Apex Court in the abeve caee awarded R31 ,O0,000!— as l l l i i i l l l l allditienal compensation to meet the pericdical expenses relating to teplacement of artificial leg. 1?.) ln the present case aiso, the Claimant was required to get an artifieial limb on acoeunt of amputation of his left leg. Following the ahgve quoted dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Negagopa \isl @urudayai $ingh and others {Segre}, we deem it proper to award a total sum of Rs.‘l,G0,0QQ,/— towards expenses incorrect! to» be incurred by the claimant for artificiai limb. i i 13:) The ciaimant is further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the above amount of Rat ,OO,DOO¢’-. t4) For the foregoing reasons; the appeal fiied by‘the appellant/ olpimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. t The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with l quantified amount of interest of Rs.15,000/n »on.the enhanced amount of compensation of Ref ,GO,DOD/—, in addition to the sum of Rs.5,25,00DI- awarded by the Tribunal. t§) Respondent No.3 the New indie insurance Company Limited is" granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rfst ,f1'5,ooor- before the ednceming Claims Tribunal. 16) No order as to costs. iii‘- ’ Sdl- , Chief Justice i