Case: G.Ravindranath @ R.Chowdary Vs. E.Srinivas

This appeal is one of the several such cases which the victims of accidents are compelled to file because the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and/or the High Court is abysmally inadequate or tragically disproportionate to his/her suffering.The appellant, who was 19 years old at the relevant time and was assisting his father in agricultural operations, suffered grievous injuries in an accident which occurred on 31.10.2000 when respondent No.1 reversed Tipper No. APH 5971 in a rash and negligent manner without care and without signal and dashed against the appellant. The rear tyre of the Tipper caused fracture in the pelvic region of the appellant. He was initially treated at Bhandari Hospital, Raichur. Later, he was taken to Nizam?s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad (NIMS). The doctors at NIMS diagnosed that the appellant had sustained pelvic and urethral injuries (total urethral rupture).The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and prayed for award of compensation under the followingHospitalization chargesMess and LodgingTransportation charges74,540.005.Damages, physical and mental shock, pains, sufferings suffered by claimant and likely to suffer in future2,00,000.006.Damages for loss of amenities, life including loss of marriage, cannot sit and walk5,00,000.007.Damages for loss of expectation of life2,00,000.008.Frustration, hardship, inconveniences, disappointment, mental shock in life, dejection and unhappiness in future life1,50,000.009.Loss of earnings2,80,000.0010.Loss of income to the parentsofthe claimant.2,00,000.0011.Future medication, hospitalization expenses.3,00,000.00?????????????? Grandappellant pleaded that he was a student of PUC second year and was earning Rs.3,500/per month by extending help to his father in agricultural operations at Amareshwara Camp. Some of the averments contained in the claim petition are extracted below:?The claimant was studying in PUG IInd year on the date of this illegible. He was helping his father in the agriculture operations since as family they own 8 acres of irrigated land at Amareshwara camp include other similar land of extent of 20 acres taken under lease basis. The accident has left him as a person of impotence since it was diagnosed he will have the erectilep.m. including his absorption in the dairy farm being maintained by his mother. The claimants prospects of better studies and good employment have disappeared. The parents of the claimant have lost the agriculture income on account of their compulsion to accompany him. The claimant suffered permanent disability and he is still undergoing treatment. He experiences severe pain and inconvenience in passing urine and he is undergoing series of surgical operations. He requires medical attention for rest of life as he needs constant care. He needs the attendance of other persons to be looked after. He suffered loss of expectation of life and he is now compelled to lead agonizing and dejected life. The parents of claimant are now finding extreme difficult to arrange for his further treatment by, abandoning their agriculture and other operations and works. The clamant is put to separatism marital life as he cannot marry.(emphasis supplied)The owner, the driver and the insurance company (respondent No.2 herein) were proceededbecause no one appeared on their behalf. However, on an application filed by respondent No.2, theproceedings were set aside qua that respondent and it was given an opportunity to file the written statement. By taking advantage of the liberty given by the Tribunal, respondent No.2 filed objections to contest the appellant?s claim on all possible counts.On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:?1. Whether the claimant proves that he met with accident on 31.10.2000 at about 10.30 AM at Amareshwara Camp due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 who caused the accident while taking reverse of his Tipper bearing No.APH 5971?2. Whether the claimant further proves his medicaland also his disability along with loss of income and his future treatment as averred inof the claim petition?3. Does the Respondent No.3 proves that he is not liable to pay the compensation since Respondent No.1 was driving the said vehicle without DL and also due to violation of policy conditions?4. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom??The appellant examined himself as PW1, Dr.P.V.L.N. Murthy as PW2, Dr. Sudhakar Krishnamurthy as PW3 and produced documents, which were marked as Exhibits P.1 to P.18. On behalf of respondent No.3, only one witness was examined as RW1 and one document, i.e., the insurance policy was produced as Exhibit R1.The Tribunal relied upon the contents of the First Information Report and the statement of the appellant (P.W.1), who gave vivid description of the accident and whose testimony was not shaken in theand held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper by its driver. The Tribunal then referred to the evidence relating to the appellant?s treatment at Bhandari Hospital, Raichur and NIMS, Hyderabad and held:?Therefore, I am of the clear opinion that the claimant has sustained fracture of pelvic region, and he subsequently developed all the above handicaps due toof urine by natural passage and his extensive treatment has also not cured him for the said accidental injury. PW.2 and 3 who have treated the claimant extensively in NIMS Hospital at Hyderabad, have clearly deposed that the claimant has now erectile dysfunction (impotence) and he needs follow up treatment for 5 to 10 years in future. Therefore, under this back ground, the claimant is entitled for Rs.30,000/for fracture of pelvic region.?The Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/for transportation, lodging and boarding and conveyance expenses. The Tribunal did not accept the appellant?s assertion that he was a student ofby observing that he has not produced any document to substantiate the same. The Tribunal also declined to rely upon the appellant?s statement regarding his income and observed that his notional income could be taken as Rs.600/per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the Tribunal held that the appellant?s net income would be Rs.4,800/per annum. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/towards disability due to erectile dysfunction, Rs.25,000/for future treatment and other unforeseen expenses, Rs.10,000/towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/towards doctors? fees, vehicle expenses etc.On an appeal filed by the appellant, the High Court took cognizance of his statement about the age, educational qualification and the fact that he was assisting his father in agricultural operations and held that it would be just and proper to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/for the injuries suffered by the appellant and an additional compensation of Rs.The High Court awarded additional amount of Rs.25,000/in lieu of medical expenses and another sum of Rs.25,000/towards transportation charges, nourishment, attendants charges, etc. This is evinced from paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment under challenge, which are extracted below:?11. In a case of this nature, when his limbs and hands are not affected, his ability to earn is not affected. But the fact remains, at the prime of his youth, he has become impotent. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.50,000/under the heading of erectile dysfunction is certainly on the lower side. In some what similar situation in the year 1999, the Apex Court had awarded a sum of Rs.1.00,000/and now the accident has taken place nearly five years thereafter and we are awarding compensation nearly after eleven years. Therefore, in our view, the just amount of compensation to be awarded under the said heading is Rs.2,00,000/Though the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/towards medical expenses, it has not taken into consideration other bills produced and the treatment appears to be continuous. Though another sum of Rs.25,000/is awarded towards future expenses, we are of the view that towards medical expensespast and future, another sum of Rs.25,000/would be an appropriate compensation.13. Similarly, the evidence on record shows, for taking treatment the claimant has to leave Raichur to go to Hyderabad on many occasions. In that context, the amount of compensation awarded towards transportation charges, nourishment, attendant charges, is on the lower side and we deem it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/under the aforesaid head.14. The amount of compensation awarded under the heading of pain and suffering, having regard to the nature of injury and the number of days he has taken treatment, appears to be on the lower side. Therefore, we award an additional amount of Rs.25,000/under the aforesaid head".

Court's reasoning:
, nothing could be elicited by Dr.P.V.L.N.Murthy which may cast doubt on his testimony regarding the nature of injuries and treatment given to the appellant byr. V.Krishnammurty, Andrologist and Microsurgeon described the test conducted on the appellant. He denied the suggestion that the certificates Exhibits16 and Exhibits(a) to (c) were false.From the testimony of three witnesses, it is established that as a result of accident the appellant had suffered grievous injuries in the pelvic region and he has become impotent. It is also established that he has already undergone multiple surgeries and will have to take treatment in institutes like NIMS for at least 10 years.Unfortunately, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raichur did not give due weightage to the evidence produced by the appellant and awarded meager compensation and that too by overlooking the documentary evidence produced by the appellant regarding the expenses incurred by him at Bhandari Hospital, Raichur and NIMS at Hyderabad. The High Court also failed to properly analyse and evaluate the evidence produced by the appellant and did not adequately enhanced the compensation determined by the Tribunal.