A.
Robert Vs. The United Insurance Co. Ltd. [1999] INSC 303 (27 August 1999)
S.B.Majumdar,
D.P.Mohapatro S.B. Majmudar, J:
Leave
granted.
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
We have heard learned counsel for the claimant-appellant as well as learned
counsel for Respondent No.1- Insurance Company in this appeal. The name of
Respondent No.2, who was the insured of the motor vehicle, has stood deleted
and the SLP against him has been dismissed by order dated 14.9.1998 on account
of absence of service to him. Hence, the question of statutory liability of the
Insurance Company survives for our consideration.
The
appellant at the age of 15 years met with a serious motor vehicle accident
caused by the motor lorry belonging to the insured, the original respondent
No.2 which dashed against the appellant at Shivaji Nagar in Bangalore city on 17.6.1984. He suffered from
various injuries which were detected as under :
i)
Fracture of left humerus; ii) Lacerated wound on the middle aspect of the left
knee 3" wide and suspected fracture of pelvis; and iii) cut wound over the
lateral aspect of right knee 1/2" X 1/8".
After
the first aid, the appellant was referred to Orthopaedic wing of Bowring Hospital. One Dr. Hafeezullah treated the appellant and confirmed
that the appellant suffered fracture of left humerus. The said fracture was
reduced on conservative lines. The appellant's left hand was put under plaster
cast for six weeks. On account of the various injuries suffered by him due to
the aforesaid motor accident, the appellant filed a claim petition under
Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The claim for compensation was
for Rs.2,83,000/- against the insured, driver of the motor vehicle as well as
the Insurance Company, the remaining sole respondent in the present case.
The
Tribunal on diverse heads after hearing the parties, granted compensation of
Rs.99,000/- taking the view that the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the insured lorry. The appellant in search of higher
compensation filed an appeal in the High Court. The Insurance Company- the
respondent herein filed cross-objections. The High Court substantially
confirmed the award of the Tribunal but by correcting an arithmetical error
reduced it to Rs.96,500/-. The appellant- claimant has filed the present appeal
for grant of higher compensation in the light of the injuries suffered by him.
Even
apart from the question whether the Insurance Company could have filed
cross-objections challenging the quantum of compensation as granted by the
Tribunal, we find that for the accidental injuries caused in the present case,
the Insurance Company's statutory liability under the 1939 Act would be Rs.1,50,000/-
at the highest as the insured is now not a party respondent before us. The only
question which survives for our consideration is whether the said statutory
liability of the Insurance Company is required to be fully foisted on the
respondent.
In
order to decide this question, we have to look at the injuries suffered by the
victim of the accident. The question of negligence of the lorry driver is no
longer open for consideration in this appeal by the claimant and the Insurance
Company also cannot have anything to say on this aspect. Therefore, proceeding
on the basis that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending motor lorry we have to see as to what is the
appropriate compensation which could be awarded to the appellant. The Tribunal
has noted, amongst others, the appellant suffered from the following injuries :
1.
Fracture
of pelvis. 2. Bladder was distended. 3.
Fracture
of left humerus.
It has
been further observed in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 that on 18.6.1984
he did the supra-pubic systostomy emergently. He inserted catheter over the
urethra for the purpose of discharge of urine. On 8.2.1985 under general anaesthesia
urethro-plasty was done by P.W.1.
The
claimant was then examined by him as he was complaining burning sensation while
passing urine with little difficulty. Subsequent X-rays taken showed that there
was evidence of pyelonephritis on the right side i.e. inflammation in the right
kidney. It was also found that there was stricture at the bulbo membranous
region. The witness deposed that on 8.2.1986 dilatation was done under general anaesthesia.
Because of the strictures referred to earlier the claimant had to undergo
repeated dilatations throughout his life. On account of the stricture over
urethra inflammation would be caused whenever there is blockage of urine. It
has been further observed by the Tribunal that the claimant will have
difficulty while passing urine throughout his life. If the urethra is affected,
sexual life of the claimant will also be affected in future. It was also
pointed out by P.W.1 that the claimant had to undergo dilatation once in a
month. All these evidence has stood well sustained on record. The evidence of
P.W.1 revealed that because of the injuries suffered by the claimant, a boy of
15 years, his future life is seriously affected including his sexual life.
These are serious injuries which required appropriate compensation to be
awarded on the head of pain, shock and suffering. The Tribunal granted on this
head only Rs.44,000/-. In our view, looking at the injuries which are permanent
in nature suffered by the claimant and which have permanent adverse effect on
his future healthy life including sexual life, an additional amount of at least
Rs.56,000/- was required to be granted to the claimant on the head of pain,
shock and suffering so as to make it Rs.1 lakh instead of Rs.44,000/-.
The
High Court unfortunately has not considered the gravity of the injuries
suffered by the claimant as established on record and, therefore, has confirmed
the award of Rs.44,000/- on the head of pain, shock and suffering. Once it is
increased to Rs.1 lakh, the total amount awardable to the claimant would work upto
Rs.1,52,500/-. However, the respondent - Insurance Company's statutory
liability is confined to Rs.1,50,000/-. We, therefore, confine the award to
Rs.1,50,000/- only which will include compensation already allowed on all
remaining items of expenditure on nourishment, medical treatment, travelling
expenses and for actual injuries and disablement suffered by the claimant.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid limited extent by increasing the
award of the Tribunal and as confirmed by the High Court to a total amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.96,500/- as awarded by the High Court by the
impugned order. The awarded amount of Rs.1,50,000/- will bear 6 per cent
interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. Whatever
amount the Insurance Company may have paid pursuant to the impugned award, will
naturally have to be adjusted towards the awarded amount and the respondent-
Insurance Company will have to pay the balance amount with requisite interest
at 6 per cent thereon from the date of application till actual payment to the
claimant. The respondent- Insurance Company is directed to deposit in the
Tribunal the balance amount payable pursuant to the present order within eight
weeks from today. Deposited amount shall be paid to the appellant on due
identification by the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.
Back
