Balbir Singh vs Jitender and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

CM No. 2097-CII of 2012

Delay of 138 days in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned on the ground that the applicant-appellant suffered injuries and was bedridden and could not approach the counsel for filing the appeal in time. For the aforesaid reasons, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 138 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM No. 2096-CII of 2012

Delay of 148 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons given in the application.

FAO No. 414 of 2012

This is an appeal brought by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. Balbir Singh, the claimant suffered injuries in a road side accident that took place on 14.03.2007. He had brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 09.10.2010 has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 62,300/- in favour of the claimant.

The claimant suffered multiple injuries on various parts of his body including fracture of leg. He has also received head injury. He has become permanently disabled. To begin with, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Karnal and then to Seth Hospital, Karnal and then to Haryana Nursing Home, Karnal. He had spent a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in purchase of medicines, treatment and transportation as well as special diet. According to him, he has not been cured. Hence, he has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

The claim petition has been resisted by respondent No. 3 only. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had been served with notice of the petition and they filed their written statement but thereafter they did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte. The respondents had denied the averments of the claimant regarding the extent of injuries he suffered in the accident, the treatment he took for the same and the fact that he has suffered permanent disability on account of the same. He is denied to deserve a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation for the alleged injuries suffered by him and have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

Learned Tribunal noticed that the claimant remained hospitalized for more than 40 days at various hospitals. He had found Rs. 32,300/- as the amount shown to have been spent in his treatment. It was also found that the injured remained away from work and must have lost some income on account of the injuries during the period of treatment. He has assessed a sum of Rs. 32,300/- for medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, loss of income and special diet, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of income due to disability.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant remained hospitalized for 45 days. According to her, for pain and suffering of the appellant during those days and thereafter as also loss of amenities of life, loss of income, special diet etc., a sum of Rs. 10,000/- alone has been awarded as compensation. She has further submitted that though the disability was 15% and the claimant was a young agriculturist, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- alone has been allowed as compensation for loss of income on account of the disability. She has prayed for enhancing the compensation accordingly.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has submitted that adequate amount has already been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant. According to him, learned Tribunal has covered all the aspects. He has further submitted that the disability was 15% and it was marginal and there is no proof on the record of the fact that the disability would affect the work of the appellant.

Though the disability is 15% and it can be said to be marginal, yet it cannot be ignored in any manner. 15% disability to an agriculturist would amount to functional disability. Even if multiplier system was not adopted for assessing compensation in his favour, the thumb rule of Rs. 2000/- for one percent of disability should at least have been adopted. Therefore, adopting the said formula, I find that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- at least should have been awarded as compensation for loss of income due to the disability.

It is a case where the appellant remained hospitalized from 14.03.2007 to 18.04.2007, from 17.11.2007 to 23.11.2007 and from 25.4.2008 to 27.04.2008. Thus, it is a case of hospitalization for 42 days. In accident trauma cases, some amount is spent without even obtaining bills. Learned Tribunal was required to take into consideration such expenses for which bills could not have been obtained. Keeping in view such expenses, I assess a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for medical expenses in favour of the claimant.

Looking to the fact that the claimant remained hospitalized for 42 days and must have remained bedridden thereafter, even, his pain and suffering alone, what to talk of loss of amenities of life, loss of income, special diet etc. could not be compensated in a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Keeping in view the enormity of pain and suffering of the claimant, I assess a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. Looking to the period of hospitalization of the claimant, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each for special diet, expenses on attendant and transportation are also allowed to the claimant. In these circumstances, the claimant is found entitled to Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation for the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 62,300/- to Rs. 1,25,000/- with the terms regarding interest etc. as settled by learned Tribunal remaining the same.