Kandhilal vs Rajesh Kumar Rawat and Others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in M.V.C. No. 236/2000, dated 28-1-2002.

Shortly stated, Kandhilal (46) has puncture repairing shop. On 12-7-1998, at 9 p.m., he closed his shop and went home along with his friend. At this lime, Scooter No. MP 20-W-7928, driven rashly and negligently, came from Madan Mahal crossing and hit the claimant, resulting in fracture of right thigh and injuries to other parts of his body. As a result of the injuries, he sustained permanent disability, loss of income for 24 months and future income for 15 years. Compensation of Rs. 8,30,000.00 is claimed. Rajesh Kumar Rawat was driving the scooter owned by Rajesh Rao and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Owner and driver have been proceeded ex parte. While Insurance Company disputes the claim. It alleges that driver of the scooter did not posses valid driving licence; therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation.

Claims Tribunal holds that the scooter was being driven rashly and negligently, resulting in injuries and permanent disability to the claimant; therefore, entitled to claim compensation. Permanent disability has been to the extent of 50% and shortening of leg by 1-1/2". Total compensation of Rs. 79,000.00 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Through this appeal, award has been challenged by the claimant. Shri Sharad Gupta submits that Claims Tribunal has not awarded just compensation in this case; claimant sustained grievous injuries, there being fracture of right thigh (femur bone); there is shortening of leg by 14/2" and the Claims Tribunal has not assessed the income correctly, nor compensation has been awarded under various heads applicable in this case.

Respondents have not appeared despite service.

Precisely, claimant suffered fracture of femur bone at two places (right leg); he was subjected to operation; steel rod inserted; there is shortening of leg by 1-1/2" and permanent disability to the extent of 50%. The fractures stated by the claimant are supported by Dr. Choudhary (A. W. 3). The claimant remained in the hospital for 3 months and 9 days. Therefore, he must have undergone great pain and suffering for the injuries after the accident, during operation and thereafter. He cannot use his leg as before and permanent disability is to continue tor the rest of his life. He had to spend on treatment, special diet, transport and sustained loss of income after the accident for about 4 months and will suffer for another 10 years. Thereafter, he may resume the work.

Shri Sharad Gupta, places reliance on United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramesh Chandra and Others, and Bholaram alias Murarilal v. Dhruvlal and Anr. [2000(2) MPLJ 625]. In Ramesh Chandra''s case, it is held in Paras 33 to 36 as under :--

"33. So far as the assessment of damages in case of bodily injuries are concerned, the broad and general principle which normally applies is that the Tribunal should award the injured party such a sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the injuries. But it is manifest that no award of money can possibly compensate a man and renew a shattered frame. Therefore, there has to be an endeavour to assess the damages taking into account the pain and suffering undergone and for the impairment which is revealed from the injuries to arrive at a fair estimate taking into account all the other relevant considerations.

It may further be noticed that bodily injury may result in deprivation. The quantum of damages may vary according to the gravity of the injury, loss of earning or earning capacity, expenses to pay others for what otherwise the injury, loss of earning or earning capacity, expenses to pay others for what otherwise the injured would do for himself or loss or diminution of full pleasure of living. The duration of the deprivation and the degree of awareness of the deprivation is also a relevant factor. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering or personal deprivation, yet the Court has to make an attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate, but subject to the considerations referred to hereinabove.

It must not be lost sight of that the loss of bodily integrity gives a right to damages even if there is no damage at all to the earning capacity or even to enjoyment of life. But damages in such cases are awarded commensurate with the extent, gravity and duration of the injury. The test in the case of bodily injury ought to be as to whether the breaking of the physical integrity is of a temporary nature or a permanent one and what impact that is to what extent the physical incapability or temporary or permanent disability will be reflected in the earning capacity of the injured.

Since it is the just compensation which is required to be awarded, no method of calculation of compensation would be justified if it does not result in awarding the amount which is not ''just'' looking to the peculiar facts of each case."

In the context of the facts of the case, compensation of Rs. 1,15,000.00 has been awarded against Rs. 62,000 awarded by the Tribunal. In Bholaram ''s case, compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 3,50,000.00 from Rs. 1,77,350.00 on the basis of income of Rs. 5,000.00 per month, age being 38 years, claimant Income Tax payee and shortening of leg by 2".

Taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the claimant, period of hospitalisation, age, income, expenditure involved etc., it is desirable to award in all compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.00 carrying interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till payment. Compensation to be paid by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, within two months.

Costs on parties.