Rudra vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

3. On 15.12.2002, at about 1.30 pm, the appellant

was walking on the road when a BMTC bus (bearing

1

No. KA-01-A-3638) came in high speed and dashed

against the appellant, as a result of which the

appellant sustained multiple injuries and was

admitted in hospital for operation and treatment.

4. The appellant was aged 25 years and was working

as a coolie. He filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming Rs.4 lacs as compensation with interest @

18%. He also claimed that he was earning a monthly

income of Rs.4000/- p.m.

5. Apparently, when the appellant was admitted to

hospital immediately after the accident, he was

conscious and well oriented and his breath smelled

of alcohol. Hence, the respondent contended that

the accident occurred solely due to the negligence

of the appellant.

6. However, the Tribunal did not accept this

argument of the respondent. It held that merely

2

because the appellant had consumed alcohol did not

mean that the driver of the vehicle did not need to

drive the vehicle cautiously. Thus, the Tribunal

concluded that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

as a result of which the appellant sustained

injuries.

7. The Tribunal concluded that as the appellant

was a coolie, his daily earnings would be Rs.100/-

per day, as the appellant's claim that he was

earning Rs.4000/- p.m. was unsupported by

documentary evidence. The Tribunal considered the

fact that the appellant had been in hospital for at

least a month and, therefore, it awarded an amount

of Rs.3000/- towards loss of income during

treatment period. The doctor had assessed

disability of the appellant's left lower limb at

58% and that of the whole body at 29%. Considering

the nature of the injuries (fracture of the ankle

and foot), it awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and

3

suffering, Rs.2000/- towards medical expenses, and

Rs.3000/- towards nourishment. The Tribunal also

awarded global compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards

loss of amenities as the appellant could not

normally carry out his occupation with the weight

of the body on it. Thus, total compensation

amounted to Rs.40,000/-, payable at 8% p.a. rate of

interest.

8. On appeal before the High Court of Karnataka,

the Court took the view that assessment of

disability by the doctor of the left lower limb at

58% and the whole body at 29% appeared to be a bit

of an exaggeration. Thus, it reassessed the whole

body disability at 15% for calculating compensation

payable towards loss of future income. Accordingly,

adopting a multiplier of 18 since the appellant was

aged 25 years, it computed loss of future income

(which had not been awarded by the Tribunal at all)

at Rs.97,200/- (Rs.3000 X 12 X 18 X 15/100).

However, it enhanced compensation for pain and

4

suffering to Rs.20,000/-, Rs.5000/- for conveyance,

nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs.9000/-

towards loss of income during period of treatment

(taking income of appellant at Rs.3000/- p.m. for 3

months). Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal was

modified and compensation was enhanced to

Rs.1,48,200/-, with interest at 6% p.a.

9. Still dissatisfied with the compensation amount

awarded, the appellant filed the present appeal

before this Court. Having gone through the records

and after hearing the parties, we are of the view

that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

10. When the doctor had assessed whole body

disability at 29%, and the same was accepted by the

Tribunal, the High Court erred in rejecting the

same and instead of presuming disability of 15% of

the whole body. Hence, we re-compute loss of future

income by considering disability at 29%, which

5

amounts to Rs.1,87,920/- (Rs.3000 X 12 X 18 X

29/100).

11. The doctor, in his evidence, has also stated

that the nature of disability is such that the

appellant cannot work as a coolie or do any other

manual work. Hence, we award compensation for loss

of amenities to Rs.40,000/-, for pain and suffering

to Rs.30,000/-, for medical expenses to Rs.10,000/-

and for conveyance, nourishment and attendant

charges to Rs.20,000/-.

12. The break-up of compensation is as follows:

Pain and suffering - Rs.30,000/-

Loss of amenities - Rs.40,000/-

Medical expenses - Rs.10,000/-

Conveyance, nourishment and attendant

charges - Rs.20,000/-

Loss of future income - Rs.1,87,920/-

Loss of income during treatment - Rs.9,000/-

TOTAL - Rs.2,96,920/-

6

13. Thus, total compensation amounts to

Rs.2,96,920/-, which is rounded off to

Rs.3,00,000/-. The impugned judgment of the High

Court is hereby modified, awarding Rs.3,00,000/-

with interest of 6% p.a. on the enhanced sum,

payable from the date of the claim petition till

realization.

14. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

15. No order as to costs.

.......................J.

(G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J.

New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

March 18, 2011

7