Krishan Chand alias Krishan Lal vs State of Haryana and Others

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This appeal arises from the judgment of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals, Kurukshetra (in short the Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 39 of 1985. The appellant was travelling in Haryana Roadways bus which met with an accident with a truck and the appellant received injuries. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith costs of the petition against respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents have not come in appeal. The negligence of the bus driver is therefore, not in dispute. The question now for consideration is regarding quantum of compensation which the appellant wants to be enhanced. The amount claimed by the appellant for compensation is Rs. one lac. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation as stated above.

The age of the appellant is held to be 50 years by the Tribunal. No documentary evidence regarding his age is shown to me. Therefore, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal regarding age of the appellant. The multiplier awarded is of 12 years, in view of the age of the appellant, the finding regarding applying of multiplier of 12 years also does not require to be interfered with.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,000/- under the head of mental agony, pain, shock and suffering. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued this amount is on the lower side and that Rs. 50,000/- be awarded under this head. The deposition of PW4 Dr. Sukhbir Singh reveals the injuries which have been received by the appellant in the said accident. The appellant was operated on 9.10.85. He was having fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of the left humorous. The fracture of the lower limb has mal-united with the shortening of 3/4th". The doctor has also deposed that there was restriction of movements of the knee joint and on attemptive movements the appellant was having pain and tenderness in the region of knee joint. The fracture of humorous was not united. The doctor stated that wound debridment and close reduction has to be done. The appellant was admitted in the Medical College Rohtak on 7.10.1985 and discharged on 11.11.1985. The doctors opined that the appellant was having permanent partial disability to the extent of 15% of the lower limb. However, so far as the fracture of humorous is concerned the doctor could not give any opinion regarding the percentage of permanent disability. He has also stated that it could not be said with certainty that the appellant will be fully cured after the operation.

The appellant remained admitted in the hospital at Kaithal and Rohtak. Looking to the evidence of injuries, the permanent disability to the extent of 15% of the lower limb assessed by the doctor appears to be quite reasonable. The doctor has not opined about the percentage of disability because of non union of the fracture of humorous. However, though the accident had taken place on 16.9.85 till the deposition of the doctor on 10.4.86, the fracture was not united. Considering the fact that after the operation the disability may be lessen but till then it is going to remain and I assess the disability to the extent of 5% on this account (of left upper limb). (This is assessed on the lower side, the fracture may not unite). Thus the total disability comes to 20%. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- on account of mental agony, pain, shock and suffering etc. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that this amount is on the lower side whereas learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has argued that it is quite reasonable amount. However, considering the injuries, operation to be carried out, stay in the hospital, shortening of leg by 3/4th" and mal-union of fracture of humorous, I award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant under this head.

The appellant has stated in his deposition that he had to spend Rs. 500/-on medicines, Rs. 450/- for taxi, Rs. 250/- for ambulance etc. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that enhancement of amount for these expenses is necessary because the appellant is not cured. The total of the above stated amount comes to Rs. 2,200/-. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has argued that no receipt is produced for medicines or taxi charges etc. It will be proper to observe that in case where injuries are received, the primary aim of the injured and his relatives is to give best treatment to the injuries and at that time it is not bothered whether receipts for the medicines are obtained or not or if the same are obtained, they may not be retained and it will be cruel to hold that no expenditure has been spent because no receipt is produced. It will, therefore, be reasonable to consider the approximate amount which must have been spent. The amount spent on this account as stated by the appellant in his deposition is not on the higher side. Considering the treatment that must have been needed and the various visits to the hospitals which he must have been required to undergo and in future he will have to undergo, I award a sum of Rs. 4,400/- (i.e. double the amount spent by the appellant) under this head. Further amount cannot be awarded under this head because there is no other data for the same.

Further operation is necessary in view of the deposition of the doctor who has stated that the appellant will be operated upon for the non union of the fracture. The amount which can be spent for the operation can vary from hospital to hospital. The doctor has not deposed as to how much amount will be required for the future operation. The appellant has not stated, in his deposition as to how much amount is required for the future operation. Therefore, a reasonable amount will have to be assessed for the same. I assess, on the lower side, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the same which shall include the hospital and other ancillary expenses which may be required to be carried out while under treatment.

On the point of loss of income, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was not able to work for one year. In his deposition, the appellant does not state that he could not work for one year. It seems that he could not have stated so because his deposition was recorded within one year of the accident. Looking to the fact that the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 11.11.1985, it can be accepted that the appellant must not have worked for about six months. Income of the appellant is assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,500/- per month. This amount is not disputed. Even this amount remained unchallenged as per observation of the learned Tribunal. It will, therefore, be proper to assess the income of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month and loss of income for six months would, therefore, be Rs. 9,000/-.

This then takes me to the question of future loss. The multiplier of 12 has been upheld by me in the earlier part of the judgment. Keeping in view the fall in the price of money and future rise in the income of the appellant, it will be proper to consider the future income at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month. The loss of future income at the rate of 20% (disability) will amount to Rs. 400/- per month i.e. Rs. 4,800 per annum and applying multiplier of 12 the total loss of income would come to Rs. 57,600/-.

No further point is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Therefore, the total amount which should have been awarded to the appellant is as under:-

Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 30,000/- 2. Medical and other expenses Rs. 4,400/- 3. Expenditure for future operation Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of income for six months Rs. 9,000/- 5. Future loss of income Rs. 57,600/- ------------ Total : Rs.1,11,000/- ------------

As this total amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- exceeds total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- claimed by the appellant, the appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- only. Out of this, the Tribunal had already awarded Rs. 30,000/-Therefore, he will now be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is awarded a further sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rs. 1,00,000/-) Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 70,000/-) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation of the amount with proportionate costs against respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and, severally.

The respondents shall deposit the additional compensation with the MACT, Kurukshetra within a period of four months from today. On the amount being deposited the Tribunal shall invest Rs. 35,000/- in the name of the appellant in any nationalised bank situated in the village/town/city in which the appellant resides, in fixed deposit scheme for a period of five years. The Tribunal shall also invest 50% of the interest amount as above, for a period of five years. The bank shall not release the deposited amount before the period mentioned above without the prior permission of the tribunal. However, the bank shall pay periodical interest to the appellant as and it falls due.