Case: Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh

3. Before we deal with this question, we would narrate a few facts. The appellant, a poor agriculturist, along with some other persons was travelling in a bullock cart on 6.2.1985 which met with an accident with a truck as a result of which he suffered injuries including the injury on right foot and right ankle exposing soft tissues and bones which was subsequently required to be amputated. Other persons also sustained injuries and the bullock cart was also damaged. The appellant, alongwith other injured persons, filed claim application bearing MVC No. 321 of 1985 before the Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga. The Tribunal passed an award dated 26.3.1990 granting a sum of Rs. 15,000/for injury, pain and suffering Rs. 5000/for loss of enjoyment of life and Rs. 5000/for loss of earnings and Rs. 5000/for medical treatment, totaling Rs. 30,000/with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application. Against that award, appellant preferred MFA No. 2237/90 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court enhanced the compensation and awarded Rs. 82,000/towards the loss of amenities of life, loss of future earnings, pain and sufferings. Apart from this sum, it was ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 18000/for purchase of artificial leg. It has come on record that the appellant was an agriculturist and that according to the medical evidence, he had suffered 80 to 85 per cent permanent disability. The medical evidence further reveals that his right leg was amputated and he was required to change artificial leg once in 2 to 3 years.4. Before we deal with the question of compensation, we would refer to second contention which is raised in this appeal.

Reasoning: 15. From the aforesaid observations it cannot be held that there is a bar for the Claims Tribunal to award the compensation in excess of what is claimed, particularly when the evidence which is brought on record is sufficient to pass such award. In cases where there is no evidence on record, the Court may permit such amendment and allow to raise additional issue and give an opportunity to the parties to produce relevant evidence.The High Court observed that in all such cases, it is necessary to keep the doors open for the claimant to make the claims, on grounds not stated earlier or for more amounts under heads already specified in the application.18. The aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court was relied upon and referred to by the Orissa High Court in Mulla Md. Abdul Wahib vs. Abdul Rahim and another (1994 ACJ 348 ) and G.B. Patnaik, J. (as he then was) observed that the expression "just compensation" would obviously mean that is fair, moderate and reasonable and awardable in the proved circumstances of a particular case and the expression "which appears to it to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determining of compensation. Thereafter, the Court referred to the decision in Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. (supra) and held that the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture, and if this is so, then it will be unreasonable to expect the party to state precisely the amount of damages or compensation that it would be entitled to. The Court also held that there are no fetters on the power of the Tribunal to award compensation in excess of the amount which is claimed in the application.19. Similarly, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Devki Nandan Bangur and others vs. State of Haryana and others (1995 ACJ 1288 ) observed that the grant of just and fair compensation is statutory responsibility of the Court and if, on the facts, the Court finds that the claimant is entitled to higher compensation, the Court should allow the claimant to amend his prayer and allow proper compensation.20. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award just compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence Produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under(4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under(6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act. If required, in appropriate cases, Court may permit amendment to the Claim Petition.However, it is to be clearly understood that M.V. 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 medical expenses, fresh and award cannot be passed or previous award cannot be reviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after finalisation 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. Future medical expenses required to be incurred can be determined only on the basis of fairafter taking into account increase in the cost of medical treatment.Further, compensation to a victim of a motor vehicle accident or in case of a fatal accident to the legal representatives is awarded under two heads, namely, Special damageswhich are suffered by the victim or the legal representatives and General damageswhich include compensation for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, earning capacity and prospective expenses including expenses for medical treatment. With regard to the first part of the damages, that is, special damages suffered by the victim or the legal representative, it can be easily proved on the basis of the evidence which is in possession of the claimant. However with regard to the second partgeneral damages/compensation, it would be a matter of conjectures depending on number of imponderables.While calculating such damages, the Tribunal/Court is required to have some guess work taking into account the inflation factor. This aspect is well discussed by M.J. Rao, J. (as he then was) in P. Satyanarayana vs. I Babu Rajendra Prasad and another (1988 ACJ 88 (AP).In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, Court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record. In the present case, it has been pointed out that for replacing the artificial leg every two to three years, appellant would be required to have some sort of operation and also change the artificial leg. At that time, the estimated expenses for this were Rs. 18000/and the High Court has awarded the said amount. For change of artificial leg every two or three years no compensation is awarded. Considering this aspect, if Rs. One lac is awarded as an additional compensation, appellant would be in a position 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 onbasis so that recurring medical expenses could beprinciple is established in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others (1994) 2 SCC 176 ) and this Court held (in para 23)In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Corpn. vs. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 ) in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1982) 1 Guj. LR 756), this Court offered the followingThe Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may, however, be allowed to be withdrawn;(ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc. to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money;(iii) In the case ofpersons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expending and existing business or for purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii) above for earning his livelihood, in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid;(iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded to him thinks it necessary to do order;(v) In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above;(vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment;(vii) In all cases which in vestment in long term fixed deposits in made in should be on condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested in paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be;(viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of an emergency. To meet with such a contingency, if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims Tribunal may invest it in more than one Fixed Deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be liquidated".Further, in Lilaben Udesing Gohel vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (1996) 3 SCC 608 ) the Court relied upon the said directions and further held that in Union Carbide Corporations case (supra), this Court did not include the clause regarding literate persons compensation and directed that it should be given the same treatment in case the Court found it necessary to do so to protect the compensation awarded to them. The Court further added one guideline asmust add one further guideline to the effect that when the amount is invested in a fixed deposit, the bank should invariably be directed to affix a note on the fixed deposit receipt that no loan or advance should be granted on the strength of the said FDR without the express permission of the Court/Tribunal which ordered the deposit. This will eliminate the practice of taking loans which may be up to 80% of the amount invested and thereby defeating the very purpose of the order. We do hope that the Courts/Tribunal in the country will not succumb to the temptation of permitting huge withdrawals in the hope of disposing of the claim. We are sure that the Courts/Tribunals will realise their duty towards the victims of the accident so that a large part of the compensation amount is not lost to them. The very purpose of laying down the guidelines was to ensure the safety of the amount so that the claimants do not become victims of unscrupulous persons and unethical agreements or arrangements. We do hope our anxiety to protect the claimants from exploitation by such elements will be equally shared by the Courts/Tribunals".