Dhan Bahadur vs Ashok Kumar and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 11.3.2011. Dhan Bahadur, the claimant sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs, by way of a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") for the injuries he had suffered in a roadside accident that took place on 13.04.2009. Dhan Bahadur has claimed himself to be 39 years of age at the time of accident. He has claimed that he was working as a security guard in BCL, SCF No. 228, 2nd floor, Motor Market, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. On account of the accident, he suffered multiple injuries on vital organs of his body including head. He has spent a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on his treatment, diet attendant and transportation expenses etc. He has claimed that he was still under treatment.

Respondents have denied the averments of the claim petition. They have denied the claimant to have suffered any injury or to have spent a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in his treatment. They had denied the claimant to be entitled to Rs. 10.00 lakhs as compensation.

Learned Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs. 37,564/- as the expenses of the claimant on his treatment. Vide bills Ex. A1 to A27, he had, though, found a sum of Rs. 50,800/- to have been spent yet, on a deeper thought, he found that some of them were rather estimates and provisional receipts which make it clear that the amounts mentioned therein had not been paid and took Rs. 37,564/- as the amount actually spent in the treatment. He has then taken a sum of Rs. 12,500/- towards pain and suffering, gratuitous services and special diet etc. and found a sum of Rs. 50,064/- as compensation which he rounded off to Rs. 50,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant remained hospitalized for 13 days. According to him, during that period of 13 days, he was operated upon and it cannot be believed that just after discharge from the hospital, he would have been fit to resume his duty. According to him, he must have taken 2-3 months to regain fitness to resume duties and, therefore, the loss of income during that period is not compensated. He has further submitted that Rs. 12,500/- could at the most be taken as compensation for pain and suffering, but it was unnecessarily held to include compensation under the other heads for which separate compensation should have been assessed.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that the amount assessed as compensation by learned Tribunal is already just and proper. According to her, the claimant-appellant cannot be held to be entitled to any further amount in the name of compensation.

It is a case where the claimant did not suffer any permanent disability. He has suffered injuries and was, though, hospitalized and operated upon, yet he was not left with any permanent or temporary defect leading to disability. Apart from a sum of Rs. 37,564/- found to have been spent in the treatment, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,500/- to cover all other heads. In my opinion, the same is not proper. Even, it is not proper to have allowed a sum of Rs. 37,564/-. It had to be kept in mind by learned Tribunal that some amounts are spent by such victims without obtaining bills in the beginning of the treatment period. So, some amount should have been added to the aforesaid amount in the name of expenses incurred without obtaining the bills.

In these circumstances, I assess a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for the expenses incurred by the claimant in his treatment. Taking the sum of Rs. 12,500/- to confine to pain and suffering, I assess a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for loss of income during treatment and assess a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the other heads, i.e., special diet, expenses on attendant and transportation. In these circumstances, a sum of Rs. 77,500/- is found to be due to the appellant for the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident. Consequently, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 77,500/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.