Chandra Prakash and Smt. Kamlesh Jain vs Ram Singh and Others

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

1 Having heard learned Counsel for the claimants- appellants and having examined the record, this Court is satisfied that both these appeals, CMA Nos. 489/2007 and 490/2007, preferred against the common award dated 21.04.2006 relating to the same accident, do not merit admission; and hence, are taken up for disposal by this common order.

On 26.03.2004, the claimant Chandra Prakash (CMA No. 489/2007) and his wife, the other claimant Smt. Kamlesh (CMA No. 490/2007), were travelling with family in their Fiat car bearing registration No. RJ14 C 8916 coming to Jaipur from Niwai; at about 07:30 p.m., on National Highway No. 12 near Marlipura petrol pump, the car was hit by an oncoming tractor bearing registration No. RJ14 TC 0034; and the claimants-appellants occupying the car sustained varying injuries.

The appellant Chandra Prakash, stating his age at 40 years and earnings at Rs. 9,000/- per month in machinery parts business, sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,40,000/- with the submissions that due to the accident he sustained several injuries on his left limbs including fractures at left shoulder, elbow, and hand resulting in permanent disablement. The claimant-appellant Smt. Kamlesh sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,51,000/- with the submissions that she was 36 years of age and apart from being a house wife, was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The claimant Smt. Kamlesh stated that she sustained grievous injuries on her head, left arm and leg resulting in disfiguration and permanent disablement.

The Tribunal has found the accident to have occurred for rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid tractor and has held the driver, owner, and insurer of the tractor liable towards compensation.

Taking up quantification of compensation in relation to the claimant Chandra Prakash, the Tribunal has noticed his assertions that he was 40 years of age; that he was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and was an Income Tax assessee; that his business was now running in loss; and that he has spent Rs. 90,000/- in treatment. The Tribunal has noticed his admissions in cross-examination that no documentary evidence relating to Income Tax payment and business was filed; that he was not aware about the contents of the disablement certificate (Ex. 13); that the Medical Officer issuing permanent disablement certificate had not been his treating doctor.

The Tribunal has noticed from the X-ray report (Ex.5) that the claimant Chandra Prakash sustained three grievous injuries, those of fracture of left humerus, fracture of distal end of radius, and fracture of ulna bone. In relation to the disablement certificate Ex. 13, the Tribunal has observed that its contents were absolutely illegible, no document was referred therein, and even the basis of certifying the claimant''s disability at 50% was not clear.

In the overall circumstances of the case, looking to the statement of the claimant that he was working from his left hand, that his business has been adversely affected, and that he has undergone long drawn treatment, the Tribunal has considered it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards the injuries, mental and physical agony, and loss of income. The Tribunal has further allowed Rs. 27,000/- towards treatment expenditure as established from the bills Ex. 14 to Ex.33. While allowing yet another amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards damage of the car, the Tribunal has made the award in the sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- in favour of the claimant Chandra Prakash.

In relation to claimant Smt. Kamlesh, the Tribunal has noticed her assertion that she sustained grievous injuries on her head, left hand and leg; that there has been disfiguration of her face; that she was suffering from incessant pain in 36 years of age and her capacity to do the household work cut down. The Tribunal has noticed in relation to this claimant that she sustained two simple injuries and has again found that the contents of her disablement certificate (Ex. 35) were illegible and the basis of certifying 20% disability was not clear. The Tribunal has awarded her compensation in the sum of Rs. 34,400/-, while allowing Rs. 24,400/- towards treatment expenditure with reference to the bills Ex. 36 to Ex.49 and Rs. 10,000/- towards two simple injuries. The Tribunal has also allowed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application in both the cases.

Learned Counsel for the appellants seeking enhancement has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has been in error in awarding meagre amount towards compensation to the claimants. Particularly in relation to the claimant Chandra Prakash learned Counsel emphasised that several grievous injuries on his working arm and hand have directly caused substantial loss and the amount of compensation as allowed by the Tribunal remains too low and grossly inadequate. Learned Counsel has referred to the Division Bench decision of Hon''ble Guhawati High Court in the case of Union of India v. Mumtaz Ahmed MACD 2007 (1) (Gau.) 30 and submitted that for a claimant in 34 years of age, while assessing his income at Rs. 3,500/- per month, and with reference to the extent of disability at 50%, the award of compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,44,176/- has been held proper; and contended that the amount of compensation as awarded in the present case remains grossly insufficient. The submissions do not merit acceptance.

It is true that the claimant Chandra Prakash sustained fracture injuries on his left shoulder, left wrist, and left hand and has undergone extensive treatment but it is difficult to make out from the evidence adduced on record if he was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month as alleged; and if there has been reduction in his earnings because of the injuries. It is rather strange that the claimant, though asserted himself to be an Income Tax assessee and engaged in business, has chosen not to produce any document in relation to his income. He has admitted in cross-examination of having not filed any document concerning his business and his income. For there being not even a semblance of evidence in relation to the past and present income, it is difficult to arrive at any conclusion regarding loss of income, if at all there be any.

The certificate of permanent disability in relation to the claimant Chandra Prakash (Ex.13) is not even worth its paper. The words and letters scribed in handwriting in this certificate are difficult to be deciphered; and whatever could be made out from such scribble, it is but certain that the Medical Officers comprising the said Board, who were admittedly not the treating doctors of the claimant, have failed to state as to what documents were examined by them and what examination was carried out on the person of the claimant; and merely with reference to the history of illness/trauma, without even stating its duration, the Medical Officers have cursorily jotted down a few words relating to left shoulder, elbow and wrist and their swelling; and have straight away certified it to be 50% disability. It beats imagination as to how and on what basis the Medical Board has arrived at such conclusion of permanent disability at 50% ? Looking to the nature and extent of injuries, such a figure on percentage of disability could only be rejected as rather fanciful. It is unfortunate that the Medical Board of J.L.N. Medical College & Hospital, Ajmer has chosen to issue such a certificate on 30.12.2005 without any sense of responsibility. The Tribunal was perfectly justified in not assigning any evidentary value to such a baseless document, which is nothing but a waste paper.

Despite want of cogent and reliable evidence, the Tribunal has yet taken a very reasonable view of the matter and has awarded Rs. 80,000/- towards the loss related with the injuries sustained by the claimant Chandra Prakash and has allowed Rs. 27,000/- towards his treatment expenditure. The ultimate amount of compensation awarded in this case at Rs. 1,12,000/- cannot be said to be low or inadequate; and rules out any scope for enhancement.

Similarly, in the case of Smt. Kamlesh, the same Medical Board on the same date has issued another certificate (Ex.35), again in an entirely irresponsible manner with absolutely illegible hand-written words; and it is again not clear as to how and on what basis the Medical Officers have chosen to state aggregate of her permanent disability at 20% ? For the reasons and circumstances noticed hereinabove, this certificate too is a waste paper and has rightly been removed out of consideration by the Tribunal. The case of claimant Smt. Kamlesh does not appear to be of any permanent disability or of any disfiguration at all. The Tribunal has noticed that there was no grievous injury on her person. The award of compensation in her relation at Rs. 34,400/- cannot be said to be low or inadequate; and, again, rules out any scope for enhancement.

Reference to the Division Bench decision of Hon''ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Union of India v. Mumtaz Ahmed (supra) is entirely misplaced. The said one was a case of the victim, a hawker of ready-made garments, who sustained fracture of right femur bone and, amongst others, proved expenditure of Rs. 1,27,176/- on treatment; and it was also found that he would require Rs. 30,000/- towards future treatment. In the said case, the Court found proved he extent of disablement at 50% and thus allowed pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. 3,57,000/- looking to the age of the claimant at 34 years. As noticed above, in the present case, the appellant Chandra Prakash has neither been able to establish the extent of his permanent disability, if any, nor has been able to establish any loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity. The case of claimant Smt. Kamlesh is not of any permanent disability at all. The award made in both these cases rule out any scope for enhancement.

The appeals fail and are, therefore, dismissed summarily.