Case: Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oritl.Ins.Co.Ltd&amp;Anr

2. The appellant became a victim of road accident which occurred on 8.9.2003 when he was hit from behind by bus bearing No.belonging to respondent No. 2. As a result of accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on different parts of the body. On the same day, he was admitted in Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Banglore. He was discharged on 22.9.2003.3. In the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), the appellant claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/with interest by making the followingthat at the time of accident, his age was 24 years;(ii) that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus;(iii)that due to the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries and remained in the hospital and that his treatment was still continuing;(iv)that he had spent Rs.5,000/by way of medical expenses;(v)that he was apprehensive of becoming disabled and that the same would result in loss of earning and affect his livelihood; and(vi) that he would have to suffer constant pain and discomfort throughout his life.In their written statements respondent Nos. 1 & 2 denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the bus and pleaded that they were not liable to pay compensation.5. After considering evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by respondent No. 2. The Tribunal then considered the issue of compensation, referred to statement made by the appellant in the form of affidavit as also the statement of Dr. S. Ranjanna, Orthopaedic Surgeon at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, who was examined asand held that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.45,000/with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of application till the date of deposit.6. Dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court did notice that as perthe appellant had suffered 26% disability in the right lower limb, 25% urethral injury and 38% disability to the whole body but granted a meager enhancement of Rs.31,000/and declared that appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.76,000/with interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

Court's reasoning:
17. The respondents have not controverted the appellants assertion that at the time of accident his age was 24 years; that he was earning Rs.5,000/It is also not in dispute that as a result of accident, the appellant suffered 26% disability of the right lower limb, 25% disability due to urethral injury and 38% disability to the whole body. Although, the percentage of the disability of whole body is 38, the evidence produced by the appellant in the form of his own affidavit and the affidavit ofshows that he will not be able to work as carpenter or do any manual work throughout his life. In other words, even though the disability suffered by the appellant is not 100 per cent, his working capacity has been reduced to zero. However, keeping in view the degree of disability, i.e. 38%, we hold that he shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.3,32,640/(38% of Rs.5,000.00 = Rs.1,540/x 12 x 18) for loss of future earning.19. The issue regarding expenses for future treatment is required to be decided in the light of the evidence produced by the parties. Although, in his evidence,Dr. S Ranjanna has stated that the appellant would require future treatment but no concrete evidence was produced by him, i.e. appellant, about the possible expenses which he may incur for treatment in future. This phenomenon is not unusual in such cases particularly when the claimant belongs to financially weaker strata of the society. He cannot engage a competent lawyer to effectively prosecute his case before the Tribunal and the High Court. However, as held in R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal and the Court can fix the amount of compensation by making some guess work. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and the fact that he will have to take treatment throughout life, we feel that ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/under that head.20. For pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/deserves to be awarded to the appellant. Likewise, for the loss of amenities including the loss of prospects of marriage which has become an illusion for the appellant, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2 lacs.21. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 , in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident.