Case: Ibrahim Vs. Raju

4. The appellant sustained serious injuries on the head, nose, back and lower region of abdomen including the pelvic region when the tempo in which he was travelling met with an accident on 23.4.2000. He was taken to Vijayashree Orthopaedic Centre for first aid and was then shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. He remained in the hospital from 23.04.2000 to 05.06.2000.5. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act) and claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/with interest and cost. He pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver Shri Raju; that he had suffered serious injuries in the accident; that he remained in the hospital for almost one month and a half and had to spend more than Rs.80,000/towards medical treatment, conveyance and expenses of the attendants; that at the time of accident he was a student of Class 8 and on account of the injuries he was not in a position to continue his studies.6. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, who were impleaded asNo.1 and 2 did not contest the claim of the appellant. However, the National Insurance Company, which was impleaded asNo.3 contested the claim by asserting that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo and that the appellant was himself responsible for the accident.7. Two of the four issues framed by the Tribunal were whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo and whether the appellant was entitled to compensation. After analysing the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo. The Tribunal then referred to the statements of Dr. Anil K. Bhat, Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics, who issued disability certificate Exhibitand Dr. Joseph Thomas, Professor of Urology, who issued treatment certificate Exhibit(both the doctors were working in Kasturba Medical College and Hospital, Manipal) and awarded compensation to the appellant under the following heads:1.Pain andt and attendantof future earning on account ofThe High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Act and enhanced the amount of compensation by a sum of Rs.

Reasoning: 18. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant had produced substantive evidence to prove that as a result of accident he had suffered 8 grievous injuries including fracture of pelvis and he had to remain in the hospital for one month and a half; that he was treated by Dr. Anil K. Bhat, Assistant Professor, Orthopaedics and Dr. Joseph Thomas, Professor of Urology and that on account of grievous injuries he was unable to continue his studies. In his deposition, Dr. Joseph Thomas categorically stated that the appellant will have to undertake life long treatment for recurrence of urethral strictures and consequential dysfunction due to fracture of pelvis. Unfortunately, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court adverted to this part of the evidence and omitted to award compensation for the expenses likely to be incurred by the appellant for future treatment. One can reasonably expect that the appellant who was only 18 years old at the time of accident would live for at least next 50 years. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,340/for expenses incurred by the appellant for treatment taken by him in the hospital. Although, Dr. Thomas did not indicate the approximate expenditure likely to be incurred by the appellant and his family for future treatment, keeping in view the nature of injuries and the fact that he will have to take treatment for the remaining life, it will be reasonable to infer that he will be required to spend a minimum of Rs.1,000/per month for future treatment, which would necessarily include fees of the doctors, medicines, transportation, etc. In the absence of concrete evidence about the anticipated expenditure, we think that ends of justice will be met if the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.2 lacs which, if deposited in a fixed deposit, would earn an interest of Rs.14,000/er annum.19. On account of the injuries suffered by him, the prospects of the appellants marriage have considerably reduced. Rather, they are extremely bleak. In any case, on account of the fracture of pelvis, he will not be able to enjoy the matrimonial life. Therefore, the award of Rs.50,000/under this head must be treated as wholly inadequate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a sum of Rs.2 lacs should be awarded to the appellant for loss of marriage prospects and enjoyment of life.20. The compensation awarded for lossof future earning on account ofpermanent partial disablement is ex facie unreasonable. Respondent No.3 did not produce any evidence to controvert the appellants assertion that on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, he had to abandon his studies. The consequences which followed were extremely grave inasmuch as he lost all opportunities for making a career in future. The prospects of the appellants marriage are extremely bleak. Therefore, a sum of Rs.2 lacs deserves to be awarded under these heads.21. We are conscious of the fact that in the petition filed by him, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.3 lacs only with interest and cost. It will be reasonable to presume that due to financial incapacity the appellant and his family could not avail the services of a competent lawyer and make a claim for adequate compensation. However, as the Tribunal and the High Court and for that reason this Court are duty bound to award just compensation, we deem it proper to enhance the compensation from Rs.1,89,440/to Rs.6 lacs. This approach is in tune with the judgment in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274. In that case, the Court considered a similar issue, referred to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Kisan Gangaram Hire 1987 ACJ 311 (Bombay), Orissa High Court in Mulla Mod. Abdul Wahid v. Abdul Rahim 1994 ACJ 348 (Orissa) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Devki Nandan Bangur v. State of Haryana 1995 ACJ 1288 and observed:"For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the 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 becomingor 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 the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under(6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition."