Gulshan Kumar vs Hardeep Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal by claimant, Gulshan Kumar for enhancement of compensation. The claimant brought a claim petition under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs for the injuries he suffered in a roadside accident that took place on 20.4.2008. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 11.12.2010 allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,73,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant. Since the point involved in the appeal is about adequacy of compensation, the facts are not required to be noticed in detail. Gulshan Kumar was taken to Sarvodya Hospital, Hisar after the accident and therefrom he was referred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi where he remained as an indoor patient from 21.4.2008 to 30.4.2008. It is claimed that he further remained hospitalized at City Hospital, Delhi from 3.5.2008 to 10.5.2008 and spent a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- in his treatment. He is also claimed to have suffered 25% permanent disability qua the right lower limb.

The respondents have controverted the aforesaid averments of the claim petition. It is claimed that the claimant does not deserve a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs as compensation.

Learned Tribunal after taking evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 1,88,000/- as compensation for expenses on treatment of the injured-claimant. He has also awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for special diet, attendant charges and conveyance charges. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been assessed qua the permanent disability and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been allowed for pain and suffering. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 2,73,000/- has been found due to the claimant as compensation which has been awarded in his favour.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that learned Tribunal has not assessed any amount towards loss of future enjoyment of life. He has further submitted that the compensation assessed for disability is also on a lower side.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has submitted, on the other hand, that learned Tribunal has assessed adequate and proper compensation. According to him, the amount awarded does not admit of any possibility of enhancement as just and adequate compensation has already been awarded to the appellant.

Apart from the fact that the claimant remained hospitalized at three hospitals and in different spells for about 16-17 days, he must have remained under treatment thereafter as out door patient for quite a long time. In such a case, a sum of Rs. 1,87,994/- has been proved by the claimant to have been spent in his treatment. In a case where the treatment has been at different hospitals in different cities, some amount should be added in the name of expenses incurred without obtaining bills. So, I find a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- as adequate compensation for the claimant on account of the expenses incurred in his treatment.

The claimant-appellant has undergone lengthy treatment. He has been visited by 25% disability. In such a case, the compensation for pain and suffering should be on a little higher side than that allowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, I find a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as just compensation for the pain and suffering of the claimant.

Learned Tribunal has clubbed the expenses on special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges and has assessed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only in this regard. Apart from the fact that the appellant remained hospitalized for 17 days, the said hospitalization is with a break. The transportation charges would be higher in this regard. So, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is required to compensate the claimant for special diet as well as attendant and transportation charges.

The amount assessed as compensation for loss of future income on account of the disability at Rs. 50,000/- appears to be proper and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. However, learned Tribunal has not cared to award any amount in the name of loss of future enjoyment of life and loss of income during treatment. Looking to the nature of injuries, hospitalization and extent of disability, I assess a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as loss of future enjoyment of life and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as loss of income during treatment. In these circumstances, I find a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation payable to the appellant-claimant. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,73,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/- which shall be payable to the appellant by the respondents with interest and in the manner allowed by learned Tribunal in the impugned award.