Kuljit Singh vs Harsh Kumar Trihan and Others

Sarojeni Saksena, J.—Appellant Kuljit Singh has preferred this appeal against the award of Rs. 85,200/- awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, by its judgment dated January 24, 1994.

In this appeal, the admitted facts are that truck No. HNC-6199, insured by respondent No. 3, was owned by respondent No. 1 and on April, 22, 1995, it was being driven by respondent No. 2. On April 22, 1995 respondent No. 2 was driving this truck from Delhi to Chandigarh. In Maruti Car No. CH-01-A-1000 Captain Pawan Deep Singh Toor, Palwinder Singh and Kuljit Singh were going from Chandigarh to Delhi. Kuljit Singh was driving the Maruti car and Captain Pawan Deep Singh Toor was sitting by his side. Palwinder Singh was occupying the back seat. Kuljit Singh was driving this car at a moderate speed. At about 11.30 A.M. respondent no.2 knocked down this car with his truck. Due to his rash and negligent driving, in this accident all the three persons travelling in Maruti car were seriously injured. Captain Pawan Deep Singh Toor succumbed to the injuries. Kuljit Singh and Palwinder Singh sustained various grievous injuries. The incident was reported to the police by Joginder Singh and a criminal case under Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No. 2. The Maruti car was also damaged.

At the time of this accident, Kuljit Singh was aged about 24 years. He was taking a course of Commercial Pilot in the Aviation Club Patiala. The training was almost complete and he was taking the last hours of his flight. He had already completed the private pilot licence and he was to be granted the commercial pilot licence very soon. He had a brilliant career of joining the Indian Airlines or Air India because after completing commercial pilot course he could have certainly been selected by India Airlines or Air India or Vayudoot Air Service. Apart from doing this training he was also running a business and was earning handsome amount. After the accident he was removed to Government Dispensary Gharaunda, but as the injuries sustained by him and Palvinder Singh were grievous and multiple both of them, after being given first aid, were referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh. In P.G.I. Chandigarh he was admitted as an indoor patient and had to undergo a number of operations. Wiring was put in the teeth because seven teeth were uprooted at the spot and the rest became shaky. Nailing was done and after that the plaster of paris cast was applied on his left hand. Mandible was also fractured. These injuries had disfigured him and prospects of getting a good life partner are also impaired. He has sustained 12 percent permanent disability. He spent Rs. 70,000/- on his medication, special diet, attendant and transportation etc. His future prospects are also diminished. He had undergone acute pain and suffering and is deprived of amenities of life. On all these wants, he has claimed Rs. 10 lacs as compensation with 24 percent interest per annum.

Respondents 1 and 2 Filed joint written statement, denying that their truck was involved in this accident. According to them, this accident took place because of the negligent driving of Maruti car by Kuljit Singh. He was driving his Maruti car in a zig zag way. Other objections were also taken. They disowned their liability to pay compensation to the claimant.

Respondent-Insurer pleaded that this vehicular accident took place due to the negligence of the claimant, who swerved the car towards the right side and then struck against the truck, which was being driven by respondent No. 2 at a slow speed on his left side. Preliminary objections and additional pleas were also raised.

The claims Tribunal framed issues, recorded parties ''evidence and came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 33,194/- as cost of medicines, as per vouchers Exhibits P-49 to P-57; Rs. 10,000/- for special diet, attendant, transportation and other unforeseen expenses; Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of matrimonial prospects; Rs. 12,000/- on account of permanent disability and Rs. 20,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Thus, a total of Rs. 85,200/- were awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

The appellant''s learned counsel contended that the Claim Tribunal has awarded compensation, which is neither just and adequate, nor even reasonable. He has miscalculated vouchers Exhibits P-49 to P-57. Its total comes to Rs. 57,044/-while the Tribunal calculated it at Rs. 33,194/-. Further, he contended that the appellant was hospitalised in P.G.I. for multiple injuries, fracture of left radius and of mandible. Two teeth of upper jaw were avulsed and four teeth of lower jaw were fractured. In all, four upper and six lower teeth were removed and a denture was applied. This has disfigured his face. He sustained fracture of left radius. He had to undergo an operation and a plate with screws was inserted. This has impaired the muscular power of his left arm. Even the grip is impaired. As per the statement of Dr. Gurdev Singh PW-6 he suffered 12 per cent permanent disability. He was bedridden for 1-1/2 months. Two fingers of his left hand were also fractured and because of the broken teeth his speech is also affected. According to him, the appellant has stated on oath that he spent Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- on his treatment, special diet and other allied expenses. This statement was unrebutted. Hence this amount ought to have been awarded. He has submitted a few vouchers in connection with purchase of medicines but it is not expected from such an injured person to maintain all the bills. Only Rs. 10,000/- were awarded for special diet, transportation and attendant. This is also on the lower side. He was bed-ridden for 1-1/2 months and was under treatment for over six months. During this period he had to visit the P.G.I. very frequently. Only Rs. 12,000/- are awarded for his permanent disability, which is ridiculously low. At the time of the accident, he was undergoing training of commercial pilot at Aviation Club Patiala. He could not attend that training for two years because of the injuries sustained by him. He has paid Rs. 40,508/- to the Aviation Club for the lapse of 52 hours training at the rate of 779/-per hour. Dr. Gaba has stated that because of the injuries to mandible and teeth the appellant is disfigured and his speech is also affected. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of matrimonial prospects. Hence the appeal.

The appellant''s counsel relying on R.D. Hatangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1995 2 P.L.R. (S.C.) , Inderjit Kaur v. Punjab State 1985 2 P.L.R. 321, Sawatantra Kumar Lamba v. Mrs. Sheela Didi 1987 2 P.L.R. 1, Tejinder Singh v. Inderjit Singh 1987 2 P.L.R. 417 and Dr. Naresh Chanra Myth v. Haryana State and Ors. 1995 1 P.L.R. 89, contended that in such injury cases the Tribunal is required to consider that the injured had to suffer acute agony, pain and suffering during this period. His face is disfigured. Due to the nailing and putting of screws the muscular strength of his left hand is impaired. Even the grip is lost. Now in future he would not be able to secure a good job. Even prospects of marriage are diminished. Hence the Tribunal ought to have awarded such an amount of compensation for the past as well as for the future pain, suffering and loss of amenities as to enable him to acquire some material positions or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to some extent his terrible disability.

The respondents'' learned counsel, relying on State of Kerala v. Vijaykumaran Nair 1982 A.C.J. 451, objected that the power of appellate Court to interfere in such matters is very limited. The appellate Court can interfere only when the Tribunal has acted on a wrong principle of law or that it has made an entirely erroneous estimate of damages. Further, relying on Ebrahim Fakir Ansari Vs. Sitaram Kamalaksha Kamat and Another, New India Assurance Company v. Abdul Mazid, (1993) 2 A.C.C. 128 Prakash Chemicals v. Krishna Singh (1993) 2 A.C.C. 160, Narinderjit Singh v. Punjab State through Secy. (1993) 2 A.C.C. 239, Arun Kumar v. Food Corpn. of India and Ors. (1993) 2 A.C.C. 283, and Union of India and Ors. v. Abdulla Khan Biban Khan (1993) 2 A.C.C. 427, he contended that adequate compensation is awarded to the appellant. While awarding compensation the Tribunal is required to keep in mind the injuries sustained by the claimant, pain and suffering, amenities of life, future prospects as well, but the aim should not be profiteering on this count.

It is true that in appeal the High Court can interfere only when the Tribunal has acted on a wrong principle of law or that he has made an entirely erroneous estimate of damages. On scanning the evidence adduced by the appellant, it is apparent that the Tribunal has made an entirely erroneous estimate of damages. The appellant has produced medical bills Exhibits P-49 to P-57. The total of these bills comes to Rs. 57,044/-, while the Tribunal has calculated it at Rs. 33,194/-. The claimant has stated on oath that he spent about Rs. 70,000/- on his treatment, special diet, transportation etc. This statement is not rebutted by the respondents. Hence, there was no reason to disbelieve him on this count. Out of this Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- he has already produced medical bills of Rs. 57,044/-. When a person sustains such grievous injuries, it is not expected of him or of his relations that they will maintain all the medical bills. Hence, in my considered view, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 57,044/- on account of the medical bills plus Rs. 13,000/- on account of transportation, special diet, attendant and other allied expenses incurred on medication.

The appellant has stated that he remained in P.G.I. for four days. His left arm was fractured. Iron rod was fixed in it. He received injuries on his face also. His nine teeth were broken. Two fingers of his left hand were also fractured. He was bed ridden for 1-1/2 months after the discharge from the hospital and he was going to hospital for his check up. Artificial denture is put in his mouth. He had undergone three operations.

Dr. Ramesh Singla PW-4 has stated that on April 22, 1991, Kuljit Singh was brought to P.G.I. He was hospitalised upto April 25, 1991. He had fracture of left radius, lacerated wound on the left forehead with black eye and fracture of mandible. Open reduction and internal fixation was done on radius. Plate was inserted. He had six avulsed teeth. Dr. Gupta PW-5 has testified that he treated Kuljit Singh in P.G.I. Chandigarh for fractures of upper and lower jaws along with fracture of teeth. His two teeth of upper jaw were avulsed and four teeth of lower jaw were fractured. Later on, in all four upper teeth and six lower teeth were removed. The dent of these teeth was applied. He is categoric that due to these artificial teeth his face is disfigured. Even the speech is impaired to a little extent though as per Dr. Gaba''s statement it would not affect his power of mastication. Dr. Gurdev Singh PW-6 has proved that the appellant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 12 percent. The certificate is Exhibit P-1 corroborating the statement of Dr. Ramesh Singla PW-4 he has also testified that due to fixation of plate on his left arm, the muscular power of the arm is impaired.

Thus, by adducing this evidence, the appellant has proved that his physical frame has been battered and shattered. Admittedly, money cannot renew his original physical frame. What the Court can do is only to award him a reasonable compensation. This compensation is to be awarded not only for the past but also for future pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The future that lies beyond the date of trial is often of more consequence than the past. Compensation is awarded in lumpsum to cover all such losses.

It is obvious that he has sustained fracture in his left arm and iron plate is fixed. Nine teeth were removed and he is using an artificial denture. He was bed-ridden for 1-1/2 months and for at least six months he was going to P.G.I. for medical check up.

The authorities cited by both the sides have taken into consideration the injuries sustained by the injured in those cases. They are decisions on facts. They only indicate a guideline how compensation is to be assessed.

In my considered view, as I have already held above, Kuljit Singh is entitled to recover Rs. 57,044/- on account of medical bills submitted by him and Rs. 13,000/-on account of special diet, attendant, transportation and other allied expenses of taking long treatment. Because of disfiguration of his face, his prospects of getting a good matrimonial alliance are also impaired. His muscular and grip power of left hand is impaired. He was undergoing training of commercial pilot. He has stated that he was required to pay Rs. 40,508/- on that account, but he has not produced any receipt that he has paid that amount to the Aviation Club. But his future prospects of getting a good job are also impaired. He has sustained 12 per cent permanent disability. His power of speech is also impaired.

Considering all these facts, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- on account of impairment of matrimonial prospects; Rs. 50,000/- on account of permanent disability and Rs. 50,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. He is also entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- on account of his diminished future prospects with regard to service.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,10,044/- rounded off to Rs. 2,10,100/-, from the respondents jointly and severally. The appellant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,95,100/- from the date of presentation of the claim petition, as well as the costs.