Dharamvir Nanda vs Pritam Lal and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 23,500/- awarded in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 10.01.1979 (almost 33 years back). It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant suffered a head injury. He suffers fits of epilepsy. He spent a considerable amount on his treatment which was continuing even at the time of filing of the Petition, yet the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) awarded only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards purchase of medicines and for treatment. It is contended that the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- awarded for pain and agony was very meager.

The Claims Tribunal dealt with each head for grant of compensation as under:-

In his petition, the petr. Has alleged that he had received a head injury, a cut wound on his left arm below shoulder, injury on his left leg as well as left lower leg and left foot. He had also received injuries all over his body. He had received a fracture in his left leg. After the accident he was removed to Dr. R.M.L.Hospital where he was treated as an indoor patient. It is also alleged that the petr. Had to take leave from his office from 10.1.79 to 2.2.79 and again from 14.4.79 to 2.5.79. The petr. Was taking a special diet at a cost of Rs. 20/30 per day; a sum of Rs. 1150/- had been spent on conveyance by the petr. and his relatives. Even though, the petr. Did not spell out the expenses incurred by him on his treatment, he claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.

In his testimony on oath, Dharamvir Nanda, the petr. Claimed that he had remained on leave from his office for about 78 days. The petr. was drawing a salary of Rs. 1378/- p.m. after his pay was revised in accordance with the recommendation of the pay commission. The petitioner needs to be compensated for the loss of salary suffered by him as he was forced to take leave for 78 days due to this accident. I am, therefore, to inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 3,500/- to the petr. on account of loss of salary. The petr. had claimed that he had spent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- for getting pvt. Consultation and had spent a sum of Rs. 100 to Rs. 150/- on purchase of medicines which were not readily available with the dispensary. The petr. has not filed bills for the pvt. consultation allegedly taken by him due to the injuries received by him in the accident. However, considering the fact that sometimes, these bills are not kept by the patients or are not made easily available, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the petr. on account of expenses incurred by him on his treatment/purchase of medicines. The petr. has claimed that he had spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,000/- on conveyance. Again, petr. Has not given the bills on this account. In the petition which was filed on 17.5.79 it was alleged by the petr. that he had spent a sum of Rs. 1150/- on conveyance which included the conveyance charges on his attendants/relations in the hospital. It is, therefore, clear that the petr. has exaggerated while stating the amount spent by him on his conveyance. However, considering that the petr''s treatment had continued for a considerable time, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the petr. on account of conveyance. This will also take into account the charges on conveyance which he might have to incur in future.

The petr. has further testified that he had taken a special diet and had spent considerable sum on the same. Again in the petition it was mentioned that the petr. was spending a sum of Rs. 20/30 per day on his special diet. Keeping in view the circumstances and facts of the case, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the petr. on account of special diet. The petitioner had not suffered any permanent disability; he had not suffered any loss in his service or promotion. A case for special damages is not made out. However, considering the injuries suffered by the petr. and its duration, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the petr. on account of pain and agony suffered by him in this accident. Thus in all, I grant him the following sums under the differing heads:-

i.

Loss of Salary

Rs. 3,500/-

ii.

Expenses on treatment/purchase

Rs. 5,000/-

iii.

Conveyance

Rs. 5,000/-

iv

Special diet

Rs. 5,000/-

v.

For pain and agony

Rs. 5,000/-

Rs. 23,500/-

Thus, it would be evident that apart from a fracture of the left foot there was no serious injury. Although, it is claimed that on account of a head injury, the Appellant has become epileptic. The Appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove that he suffered any neurological disorder or started getting fits of epilepsy on account of head injury suffered by him. The Appellant was compensated for loss of salary; expenses for treatment; purchase of medicines; conveyance and special diet even in the absence of any specific evidence. It has to be borne in mind that this accident took place in the year 1979 and the compensation was to be awarded on the value of rupee and the scale as prevalent at that time. The Appellant was an Indoor Patient at Dr. R.M.L. Hospital for 23 days and thereafter he remained under treatment as an OPD Patient. Considering the nature of injuries, the period of hospitalization and the duration of treatment, the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering was definitely on the lower side. The same is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-.

The Claimant was declined towards grant of any interest during the pendency of the Claim Petition on the ground that the Appellant himself was responsible for the delay as he took 16 years for completion of his evidence.

The Appellant would thus be entitled to an interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 10,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the award by the Claims Tribunal i.e. 30.04.1998 upto the date of deposit of the amount in this Court.

Respondent No.4 New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest within a period of six weeks with the Registrar General of this Court. The compensation amount shall be immediately released in favour of the Appellant on deposit of the amount by the Insurance Company. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.