Harbans Singh vs Joginder Singh and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—Harbans Singh, appellant herein was going on Madhya Marg, Chandigarh on 18.11.1992 when he was hit by a Maruti Car. He sustained multiple injuries. He remained admitted in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh and later on in a private hospital at Ambala City, upto 6.12.1992. Appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. Petition was resisted. Respondents denied the involvement of the car in the accident. Respondent Insurance Company in its written statement took a preliminary objection that respondent 1 was not the owner of the Maruti Car at the time of the accident. After framing of issues, the claimant-appellant examined four witnesses including himself. On the other hand, respondents did not lead any evidence except tendering in evidence certified copy of the insurance policy. Exhibit R.1 and copy of the driving licence of respondent 2 Mark ''A''.

Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence produced on record came to the conclusion that the appellant suffered injuries in the motor accident on 18.11.1992 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car CHK 1030, but there is no proof of the fact that the said car at the relevant time was being driven by Simran Sandhu, respondent. The Claims Tribunal thus awarded a compensation of Rs. 11,585/- with interest, by its award dated 31.7.1995. Hence this appeal at the instance of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel after relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, , and two judgments of this Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. Harbhajan Singh and Others, and Kuljit Singh Vs. Harsh Kumar Trihan and Others, , submitted that the appellant at the time of the accident was working as Accountant (Muneem) with Fancy Dupatta House Ambala City at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/- and on account of the injuries and permanent disability suffered by him in the accident, his efficiency to work has been reduced. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 27.5% because of shortening of right leg by 2.5 cms, but no compensation has been awarded to him for permanent disability, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life etc. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Claims Tribunal gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the car in question, and the compensation awarded is on the higher side, and in any case, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation.

On an examination of the award, I find that it stood proved on record that the appellant suffered injuries on his right leg, ribs and head. He suffered four fractures on his right leg, and his ribs on the right side were also fractured. The appellant remained admitted in the General Hospital at Chandigarh for three days and thereafter he remained admitted in a private hospital at Ambala City upto 6.12.1992. As per the statement of the doctor R.K. Mehandiratta, the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 27.5% on account of shortening of his right leg and limitation of knee. The Claim Tribunal on a consideration of the matter awarded compensation under three heads i.e. Rs. 9,645/- on account of expenses on treatment, Rs. 1,140/- on account of special diet and Rs. 800/- for engaging a servant for the period during which the appellant remained admitted in the hospital.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to some more amount as compensation as against the one awarded by the Claims Tribunal. As per the statement of the claimant before the Tribunal, he spent a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- on his treatment which included the costs of the medicines and charges for various tests including x-rays etc. He specifically stated in his statement that he could not preserve all the cash memos/bills regarding purchase of medicines. From a perusal of the award, I find that the Claims Tribunal awarded only that much amount for which the cash memos/bills were produced in evidence by the claimant. It is clear from the record that the appellant suffered grievous injuries and fractures on his right leg and ribs. It has also come in evidence that after the accident, the appellant became unconscious and gained consciousness after three days of the accident. It further came in evidence that the appellant had come from Ambala City to Chandigarh for some personal work. He met with accident at Chandigarh and was initially admitted in General Hospital, Chandigarh, it is apparent from the statement of the claimant that he suffered injuries on his head. One head injury was stitched. In these circumstances, the appellant could not be expected to keep details of every expenditure made on his treatment or preserve all cash memos/bills against which medicines might have been purchased or tests were carried out. On a consideration of the matter and having regard to the nature of injuries and expensive treatment thereof, and the duration of treatment, I am of the opinion that claimant must have spent at least a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, if not Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- as stated by him in his statement before the Tribunal, on his treatment including purchase of medicines, charges for various tests and x-rays etc. Compensation awarded under this head is, therefore, enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-.

Again on the same analogy, the amount awarded under the head "special diet also deserves to be enhanced, for the appellant who suffered serious injuries and fractures and remained in pain on that account cannot be expected to keep complete record of all items of special diet which he might have purchased for his speedy recovery. There is no dispute that the appellant required special diet as is clear from the statement of Dr. R.K. Mehandiratta AW-1 who stated that "I recommended special diet to the patient including high quality proteins in the form of fish, meat, milk and vitamins in the food." Claims Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,140/- on account of special diet. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to at least a sum of Rs. 2,000/on account of special diet.

From the award, it would be seen that various head escaped notice of the Claim Tribunal under which also, the appellant was entitled to some amount. In Hardeep Singh''s case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court observes thus:-

"No authority on the amount of compensation lays down a rule of law. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospectus, nature of injuries sustained by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospectus."

In R.D. Hattangadi''s case (supra), the Supreme Court observed thus:-

"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money: whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (ii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."

As per the statement of the claimant before the Tribunal, he at the time of the accident was working as Muneem with Fancy Dupatta, Ambala City on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/-. In the accident aforesaid, the appellant suffered various fractures and faced hospitalisation for about three weeks. As per the statement of AW-1, the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 27.5% and he has given reason for this opinion by specifically stating that this permanent disability was because of shortening of right leg of the appellant by 2.5 cms, limitation of right knee movements and limitation of right ankle movements. This witness further stated that the appellant had power deficit around right knee, right ankle, and disability in relation to his right lower limb is 17.5%. The appellant, after sustaining injuries and facing above complications arising therefrom must have undergone a lot of physical and mental agony and have been deprived of enjoyment of life and other amenities, not only during the period he remained under treatment, but he is likely to remain under distress and disappointment in the remaining part of his life especially having regard to the fact that his disability is of permanent nature due to shortening of right leg by 2.5 cms.

In the totality of the circumstances and especially keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court as noticed above, I allow a lump sum amount of Rs. 12,000/- as general damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of; amenities of life and disabilities and loss of earning capacity. This amount is allowed keeping in view the fact that the claimant at the time of the accident was! 65 years of age and the further fact that doctor stated that the disability is likely; to improve by 10% in due course.

In view of the above, the total amount payable to the appellant on all counts would come to Rs. 29,800/- rounded of to Rs. 30,000/-. Award of the Claims Tribunal is thus modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitied to a total compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment minus the amount, if any, already received by him. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.