S.M. Sukumar v. Muneer

According to P.W.1, she would earn notless than a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. She had her own capital andby borrowing from the Bank she was doing the dairy business. Sheproduced documents to show that the deceased Sarasakanthammal wasfinancially independent. The evidence of the Veterinarian P.W.3 wouldalso show that she had more than 50cows and buffalos. According toP.W.1 because of the death of the male members of the family, theagricultural activities had become impossible and the brick kiln had tobe closed. P.W.7 is the Auditor who had also given evidence in supportof the financial capacity of Sarasakanthammal. On the basis of P.W.9series which show the supply of milk to Hotels by Sarasakanthammal andalso P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.12 series with regard to the dairyactivities, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased wouldhave earned not less than a sum of Rs.5000/- per month and adopting themultiplier of 12 had awarded a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- as compensation tobe distributed amongst the claimants equally.

Though the Tribunal hastaken into account all these factors it is difficult to ascertain how https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ much exactly the deceased Sarasakanthammal would have earnedindependently. (a)The Tribunal had fixed a sum of Rs.60,000/- as her annualincome. There is no proof of income. But, however, considering thedocuments that have been placed before the Tribunal we do not think wewould be erring if we fix her contribution to her family at Rs.3000/-per month and Rs.36,000/- per year. If we adopt a multiplier of 12, wearrive at a pecuniary loss of Rs.4,35,000/-. One cannot ignore thefact that this family is twice, thrice or four times bereaved. But, however, since we will be awarding compensation for each fatal case wethink that we would not be wrong if we reduce the award under the headof love and affection to Rs.10,000/-. The funeral expenses is fixed ata sum of Rs.5000/- and we arrive at a sum of Rs.4,47,000/- which isrounded off to Rs.4,50,000/-. (b)We, therefore, modify the award of the Tribunal for a sum ofRs.4,95,000/- to a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest at 9%instead of 12% per annum.

The compensation will be taken equally by theclaimants.II.C.M.A.No.1575 of 2000:The claimant here is Vijaya who sustained injuries. She hadclaimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and she was awarded a sum ofRs.98,000/-. According to her, she was taking care of the lands aswell as the rice mill and would have earned atleast a sum of Rs.2000/-per month. She had suffered injuries in her face and in the left handand fractures in her jaw and also in the left wrist. There is somedifficulty in eating and in performing the activities with the lefthand. It is seen from the materials on record that even on the date ofthe accident she had been admitted in the Vellore CMC Hospital. Shehad lost her husband in the accident. Therefore, inspite of grievousinjuries she was taken home for performance of the obsequies andthereafter, since she had also lost her parents she had to remain athome as there was no one to take care of the children.

Therefore, aDoctor had gone to her residence to give treatment and the certificateis Ex-P99. The disability certificate is Ex-P100, according to whichshe had suffered a disability of 45%. According to her, she iscontinuing to take treatment which costs her Rs.45,000/-. According toher evidence she is not normal and even the slightest shock affects hervery much. The Tribunal has taken into account the evidence of P.W.12,the Doctor who had issued the disability certificate and also P.W.13,the other Doctor. They have spoken of the disabilities suffered byher. P.W.13 was the Doctor who had given her minimum treatment in Vellore. His evidence is that she suffered a trauma and she is unableto carry on her daily activities as before and she is also not able toassist her family in the rice mill business. The Tribunal notionallyfixed her monthly earning at a sum of Rs.2000/- and for the six months https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ treatment awarded a sum of Rs.12000/- for loss of income, towardstransport the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- and extra nourishmenta sum of Rs.3000/-. On the basis of Ex-P99, the Tribunal awarded a sumof Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses which appears to be veryreasonable.

On the basis of the certificate given by the Doctorsregarding her disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards disability and a sum of Rs.18,000/- for the pain and suffering. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.98,000/-. Considering whatthis claimant has suffered and does not appear to us to be excessive orunreasonable. We are therefore, not inclined to interfere with theaward except to the extent of reducing the rate of interest. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal insofar as the quantum isconfirmed. The award will bear interest at 9% from the date ofpetition till the date of payment. III.C.M.A.No.1576 of 2000:The claimant was a young boy of three years when he suffered theaccident. He had fractured his left hand and had suffered headinjuries. He was an inpatient for 15 days first and thereafter againfor two months. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted thatafter the accident that took place in 1992 when he was three years oldhis mental capacity had been arrested as on the date of the accidentand though 16 years have passed he still has the mental capacity ofthree years' old.

P.W.9, Nirmala has given evidence on behalf of theclailmant Aravind. The Tribunal has considered in detail the physicalcondition of this injured young boy. We can see that what he hassuffered cannot be calculated in terms of money. His limbs have beenshortened and his nervous system has been affected. Nothing that we canaward to him as compensation will really compensate to this young boywhat he has lost or what his parents have lost. The wound certificatehas been marked as Ex-P172 . The discharge summary is Ex-P173. He hadsuffered partial loss of vision. On the basis of the materials onrecord which includes Ex-P172 to 179, 182 to 189 and the evidence ofthe Doctors, the Tribunal found that not only had this young boy losthis father in the accident but he had suffered incalculable injury. His social interaction with his peer age group has been affected. He isnot like the other children of his age and he has been admitted in aspecial school.

The Tribunal found on the basis of the evidence ofP.W.12 that he would require continued treatment throughout his life.P.W.14 has spoken about his vision and given Ex-P198 wound certificate, the injury to the brain has been certified by other Doctors. TheTribunal relying on 1995 ACJ 232 (SC) (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narendra Panduranga Kadam), 1991 ACJ 729 (P & H)(Gursharan SinghSandhu Vs. State of Haryana), 1992 ACJ 443 (P&H) (Dr.M.L. Sharma Vs.State of Haryana) and 1993 (2) PLR 266 (Iqbal Singh Vs. Avatar Singh)calculated the compensation. A sum of Rs.37,318.33p was spent formedical expenses vide Exs-P174 to 181 and the same was rounded off toRs.40,000/-. For transport a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded and for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ extra nourishment a sum of Rs.8000/- was awarded. Under the head ofdisability a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- was awarded for loss of amenities.

Taking into account his requirement of future expenses, his pain andsuffering, the loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum ofRs.4,40,000/- and therefore, arrived at a total compensation ofRs.4,98,000/-. Considering what this young boy has suffered, we do notthink it warrants any interference. Therefore, the quantum isconfirmed and we only reduce the interest to 9%. IV.C.M.A.No.1583 of 2000:The claimant is Ramya. She had suffered fracture of her rib bonesand a claim of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was made. Her father Ravi Kumarwas examined as P.W.

Murugan, P.W.13 has alsobeen examined to assess her disability. On the basis of the evidencebefore it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is certaindisfigurement. The child is unable to play like other children. Thepossibility of her getting convulsions cannot be ruled out and hereducation prospects and marriage prospects had been considerablyaffected. The Tribunal, therefore, on the basis of the voucherscalculated the medical expenses at Rs.40,000/- and for loss ofamenities etc. a sum of Rs.85,000/- and for disability a sum ofRs.1,50,000/- aggregating to a sum of Rs.2,95,000/-as against the claimof Rs. 3,00,000/-. We do not think this warrants interference. Thequantum is confirmed except for the interest rate which is reduced to9%. V.C.M.A.No.1582 of 2000:On Rajendra Kumar died in the accident. He is the father of theinjured Aravind in C.M.A.No.1576 of 2000. He has left behind his wifeNirmala and two sons, Aravind and Anand.

He died at his age of 27years. He was a landlord and income tax assessee. According to thepetitioner, he is earning a sum of Rs.27,000/- per month. He was giventreatment in the CMC Hospital, but it was of no avail and he died https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ succumbing to the fatal injuries. A claim of Rs.10,00,000/- was made. His wife Nirmala was examined as P.W.91. She had given evidenceregarding his contract business, his agricultural income etc. anddocuments were marked to prove this. According to her, he was also aGovernment contractor. Some of the documents that had been marked areExs-P155 to P167. The Auditor as already mentioned above has alsogiven evidence regarding his income. P.Ws.9 and 10 have also givenevidence regarding the earning capacity of Rajendra Kumar and that hewas capable of earning a huge income. The Tribunal on the basis of Ex-P186 which is his income tax account fixed his annual income at a sumof Rs.2,80,000/- and following the Unit method, the Tribunal hadarrived at a loss to the tune of Rs.1,06,668/-. The Tribunal thenadopted the multiplier of 9 and after awarding the conventional lossunder various heads fixed the compensation at a sum of Rs.9,79,012/-. (a)The learned counsel for the appellant submitted thatconsidering the nature of business of the deceased, the entire incomeearned by him from agriculture or contract business would still beavailable to the family and the loss of value of his service aloneshould be fixed.

(b) In view of the nature of business carried on by the deceasedwe are unable to reject the submission made by the learned for theappellant. We therefore, fix his annual contribution to the family at60,000/- instead of 1,06,668/-. But instead of nine as a multiplier, we adopt 15 as a multiplier which would be just and reasonable inconsidering the age of the deceased. A sum of Rs.5000/- is fixedtowards funeral expenses, an aggregate amount of Rs.20,000/- isawarded. Thus the award amount is modified to a sum of Rs.9,25,000/-as against the award of Rs.9,79,012/-. The interest is fixed at 9% perannum.VI.C.M.A.No.1577 of 2000:This relates to the death of one Parthiban who is the husband of Vijaya, the claimant in C.M.A.No.1575 of 2000.He was the son-in-lawof the family. The claimants are his father, his wife, his mother andhis three children. The father died pending the original petition andtherefore, the others are recognized as legal representatives.

A claimof Rs.15,00,000/- was made. The deceased was 30 years when he died. He was carrying on the business as a wholesaler in jaggery and rice andhe was also having a money lending business. He was earning about asum of Rs.20,000/- per month in support of the claim. His wife hasgiven evidence as P.W.4. To support their case regarding his incomethey have filed Exs-P59, 70, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77 series, 78, 85 etc. The deceased was assessed to income tax. This is seen from his pan cardEx-P86 and they have filed the income tax counterfoils, the income taxassessment and they are Ex-P87 series, P87 to P91. Ex-P91 which relatesto the assessment year 1990-91 shows that he has declared an income of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.2,65,000/-. Ex-P92 relates to the assessment year 1992-93 and itshows an income of Rs.2,80,000/-. To prove their case that he had ricemill, P.W.4 has been examined and also P.W.5.

The Tribunal fixed hisannual income at Rs.2,50,000/- and adopting a unit system fixed thecontribution to the family at Rs.1,78,184/-. They adopted a multiplierof 8 and after awarding amounts under the conventional heads ofcompensation fixed the compensation at Rs.14,85,475/-. In this casealso considering the fact that it was a family business it wascontended on behalf of the appellant that only loss of value andservice should be taken. Therefore, annual contribution is fixed atRs.90,000/- and by adopting the multiplier of 15 we arrive at apecuniary loss of Rs.13,50,000/-. The funeral expenses is fixed as asum of Rs.5000/- and under the loss of love and affection andconsortium a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded. This aggregates to a sumof Rs.14,15,000/-. Therefore, the award is modified to Rs.14,15,000/-with an interest of 9% per annum. VII.C.M.A.No.1581 of 2000:The claimants are the legal heirs of Murugananthan, the head ofthe family, which came to this tragic end.

He is the husband of Sarasakantha Ammal. The claimants are his son Sukumar who travelled inthe motor-cycle behind the car. Chinna Raja alias Siva Kumar whosuffered an injury will be dealt with later. His mother Jayalakshmiand his daughter-in-law Indira Gandhi. The deceased was about 53years’ old when he met with the accident; he was a contractor, landlord, owner of a brick yiln and owner of a dairy business. He wasearning not less than a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. He was anassessee of Income Tax. All this is spoken byP.W.1 his son Sukumar. The documents relating to his earning capacity are Exs-P25 to P40 whichinteralia refers to his loans from Bank for agricultural purposes, hisdischarge of the loan, the supply of milk to Tamil nadu MilkDevelopment Society and his contract with a Society at Wallajah for thesupply of milk etc. He has also filed documents Exs-P41 to 43 whichshowed that he had insured the cattle and also the certificate of theveterinary doctor.

He has been a Class II contractor registered with Public Works Department. His registration certificate is Ex-P49. Theevidence shows that he was upgraded as a Class I contractor. He wasalso a contractor for Pattukottai Alagiri Transport Corporation, Ex-P61. The income tax assessment intimation notice were also filed (Ex-P62). P.W.3 who is the doctor and has given evidence regarding hisdairy business and the quality of the cattle that he had. P.W.7 isthe Auditor who has given evidence regarding Muruganantham’sflourishing business. The claimant’s case is that Muruganantham’smonthly income should be fixed at a sum of Rs.30,000/- and a multiplierof 12 should be adopted. On the basis of the income tax return withregard to the assessment year 1992-93, Ex-P64, the Tribunal assessedits contribution to the family on the basis of units and arrived at anannual contribution of Rs.1,75,910/- and adopted a multiplier of 8. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Then it awarded amounts under conventional heads arriving at a totalcompensation of 14,49,280/-(a)The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it wasa flourishing business and it was carried on only by Muruganantham andtherefore, the compensation is on the lower side and not on the higher.

On the other hand, the counsel for the appellant submitted that sinceneither the brick kiln nor the dairy business nor agriculturalactivities would have come to an end with his death and so there willbe no loss of income from those businesses. (b) So, the compensation should be fixed on the loss of value ofservice, which in any event would have generated income for the family. Hence we take into account the expertise and the knowledge of thedeceased and fix the economic loss to the family at a sum ofRs.1,50,000/- per annum. The Tribunal adopted 8 years whereas we think9 years would be the appropriate multiplier in this case. Therefore, we arrive at a pecuniary loss of Rs.13,50,000/- . For funeral expensesa sum of Rs.5000/- is granted. In the result, there will be an awardof Rs.13,55,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum and the awardof Rs.14,49,280/- with 12% interest will be set aside.

To that extentthe appeal is allowed.VIII. C.M.A.No.1580 of 2000:This relates to the claim made by the injured claimant ChinnaRaja. It is to fix the marriage alliance of Chinna Raja alias SivaKumar that the entire family travelled on the road and met with theaccident. A claim of Rs.25,000/- was made. He was only 22 years’ oldand the wound certificate shows that he had laceration without anyfracture. The documents have been marked to show the nature of injuryand nature of treatment. Taking into account all the factors, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as against the claim ofRs.25,000/-. We do not think this warrants any interference.*The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. IX.C.M.A.No.1579 of 2000:The claimant is Ravi Kumar. He prayed for a compensation ofRs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. He was 32 years' olddoing coconut business and also money lending business and according tohim, he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-. His rib bone were broken.

He was an inpatient for a period of one and a half months. Accordingto him, his physical capacity has considerably diminished. He examinedhimself as P.W.6 to support his case. Regarding the injury, documentsExs-P102 to 130 have been marked. They include the discharge summaryas well as medical bills and receipts. He has also marked Exs-P115 to121 to prove his income from the coconut business and from agriculture.P.W.12, the Doctor has given an evidence regarding his stability as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also P.W.13, Doctor Murugan. The injuries were undoubtedly grievous innature. He had been kept on a ventilator and thereafter, he wasgradually weaved off from the ventilator. His disability was assessedat 65%. His medical expenses on the basis of the documents filed beforethe Tribunal was a sum of Rs.37,000/-. This was rightly awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for pain andsuffering, a sum of Rs.60,000/- for loss of earning for the six monthsthat he was unable to work by fixing a sum of Rs.10,000/- as anappropriate monthly income, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given for extranourishment, a sum of Rs.5000/- for transport, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards disability totalling to a sum of Rs.2,62,000/-. We heard the submissions made by both the counsel one in supportof the claimant and the other claiming that it was excessive.

Considering the nature of the injury as spoken to by the Doctor we donot think a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- is excessive. Therefore, *The CivilMiscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.X.C.M.A.No.1578 of 2000:The claimant is Jeyanthi mala. She claimed that there was afracture in the back bone, lost her front teeth in the upper jaw andhad a surgery in the nose. It is seen from her evidence that she hadlost her mother, father, sister's husband, brother Rajendran and thedriver of the van died succumbing to the injuries in the accident andher husband and child also had suffered injuries. P.W.12 the Doctorwas also examined who assessed her disability at 40%. It appears thatshe also suffered disfigurement in the face. The Tribunal has awardeda sum of Rs.17,000/- towards permanent disability and incapacity toperform the normal day to day affairs and a sum of Rs.2000/- towardsloss of earning capacity and Rs.2300/- towards medical expenses proofof which is given under Exs-P143, 145 and 146, a sum of Rs.2000/-towards extra nourishment and transport and Rs.4000/- towards pain andsuffering aggregating to a sum of Rs.27000/-. We do not think this asin any way excessive. Therefore, we confirm the award and *the CivilMiscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. 6. The apportionment and the other findings given by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

Although injury is a major public health problem, the government, medical fraternity and the society are yet torecognize it as a growing challenge. Accelerated urbanization and industrialization have led toan alarming increase in the rate of accidental injuries, crimeand violence in India. An unprecedented increase in the number ofvehicles has outpaced the development of adequate roads andhighways. India has 1% of the motor vehicles in the world, butbears the burden of 6% of the global vehicular accidents. It iswell recognized that our health care system is not fully equippedto meet the challenge. Injury as a problemRoad-traffic accidents are increasing at an alarming annualrate of 3%. In 1997, 10.1% of all deaths in India were due toaccidents and injuries. A vehicular accident is reported every 3minutes and a death every 10 minutes on Indian roads. During1998, nearly 80,000 lives were lost and 330,000 people wereinjured.

Of these, 78% were men in age group of 20-44 years, causing significant impact on productivity. A trauma-relateddeath occurs in India every 1.9 minutes. The majority of fatalroad-traffic accident victims are pedestrians, two wheeler ridersand bicyclists. Clinical and operational components In the absence of guidelines, the workforce available forprehospital and hospital-based critical care varies enormously. Available personnel and their skills often do not match the needsof the patients. The optimal number and type of prehospitalpersonnel for ambulances is not defined. The concept of adedicated trauma team is not accepted at all levels. At amajority of hospitals in the public health system, the casualtymedical officer is the only one to respond to a demand for majorresuscitation. This paradox is striking, resulting in the mostseriously injured patients frequently being dealt with by themost junior and inexperienced staff.

There are no plans fordynamic and flexible responses to the optimal management oftrauma patients. The lack of precise and predetermined roleallocation during peak periods of activity stresses the fragilecurrent systems and workforce. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RehabilitationRehabilitation, though an integral element of any trauma-caresystem, is a neglected area in India. It is restricted tophysiotherapy in most centres. Although 76% of the facilitiesoffer physiotherapy services, only a third offers occupationalrehabilitation and psychological counselling. The surveyedhospitals failed to demonstrate strong links and transferagreements between acute facilities and rehabilitation units. Social security, retraining, as well as employment and othersupport schemes from the government for the rehabilitation of theinjured, are limited; only a few voluntary organizations offersuch assistance.

The FutureThe future appears both daunting and challenging. It is estimatedthat from its present position of the ninth leading cause ofdeaths in India, trauma will move up to third position by 2020.It is also estimated that in the developing countries over 6million will die and 60 million will be injured, or disabled, inthe next 10 years. India will have a large share in this, with anestimated economic loss of around 2% of GDP. To meet thischallenge several efforts are required: resource creation, education, legislation, upgrading prehospital and hospital basedcare, public awareness and a change in the attitude of thepolicy-makers. The public health institutions will also benefitfrom adopting WHO Essential Trauma Care guidelines for traumacare, which is aimed at low cost improvements to the trauma care. There are already some ongoing efforts in that direction. Although the overall picture in trauma care is not as dismal asit used to be three decades ago, ‘trauma care for all’ continuesto remain a distant dream in India. Despite significant overallprogress in many other fields, trauma systems in India continueto remain at a formative stage for various reasons. A concertedeffort from all the parties involved, as well as the society, isthe need of the hour. "