Laxmibai vs M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another

P.D. Mulye, J.—The Appellant has filed this appeal u/s 110(D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against an award dated 12.1.1973 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in Claim case No. 6 of 1972.

The short facts giving rise to this appeal and which are not now in dispute are that the Appellant along with her husband and other passengers was travelling in Bus No. M.P.M. 4048 owned by Respondent No. 1 and driven by its driver-Respondent No. 2 on 15-8-1971 from Khandwa-Indore. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the said bus driver, the bus met with an accident near village Sagadiya with the result that the bus over-turned, as a result of which the Appellant received injuries and her nasal bone was fractured. She, therefore, claimed compensation for Rs. 25,000/- which included Rs. 4,000/- for pain and suffering Rs. 1,000/- for medical expenses and rest for general damages for the disfiguration of her nose which has resulted in her ugly appearance.

Though the Respondents contested the claim, the learned Member on evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver due to which the Appellant received injuries on her face which has been amply proved by Dr. Prakash (P.W.1). It has been found proved that the Appellant''s nose was fractured and the nasal bone has been pushed inside, with the result that there has been a permanent disfiguration on her face which has made her facial appearance somewhat ugly. He therefore awarded Rs. 750/- for medical expenses and Rs. 3,000/- on account of general damages for physical and mental sufferings and pain. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

The only question raised and involved in this appeal is whether considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant, who is a young married lady of 30 years, whether the compensation paid to her is reasonable even though the facial injury has resulted in disfiguration of her face and consequent ugly facial appearance.

As there is no challenge about the finding of the learned Member regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, it is not necessary to reconsider all those issues in this appeal.

Dr. Prakash (P.W. 1) who examined the Appellant immediately after the accident has stated that on examining the Appellant he found that there was a bleeding from the nose and a depression on the nasofrontal region which depression of the nasal bone was repaired. He also found that there was a lacerated wound on her forehead. In addition she also received injuries on her head and foot. According to this witness there has been a depression over the glabellar region i.e. over the nose and between the eye-brows. There is also a permanent scar running from the right eye-brow oblique in nature running towards the right side of the frontal bone, which is about 1" long. Though initially the patient was advised for plastic surgery, Dr. Grewal did not deem it proper to do so and this depression and scar has caused permanent disfiguration of her face. The patient was operated upon for the fracture sustained to the nasal bone.

In addition to this medical evidence, the Appellant has stated that due to the facial injury sometimes blood passes through the nose and she often suffers pain. Due to the nose injury, there is depression of the nasal bone and due to the disfiguration of her face she has developed an inferiority complex.

Relying on this evidence, it was contended that due to this disfiguration on the face and ugly appearance, the Appellant, who is a young lady, will have to suffer this mental humiliation and torture throughout her life and due to that inferiority complex there can be a constant mental brooding. This aspect deserves some consideration.

Admittedly, the Appellant is a married lady having two children and is leading a normal life in the company of her husband. In the case of an unmarried girl who suffers such facial disfiguration due to such type of accident, different considerations for awarding compensation would arise as that disfiguration might be great handicap in the prospects of her marriage and may seriously affect her future career. Different considerations would also arise in connection with the quantum of compensation about a female artist whose life might be ruined due to her disfiguration as in the case of an artist, the facial feature and expression play a very important role. In the present case, there is no evidence to indicate that the Appellant prior to the accident was engaged in any such vocation or profession upon which her livelihood depended. However, considering the young age of/the Appellant and the facts and circumstances of the case including her status as a woman in the society, we are of opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if she is awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of general damages. See Yakhob Vs. The State of Madras, A. Rahiman and Another Vs. M. Wabber and Others, ; Sydney Victor and Another Vs. Janab S. Kader Sheriff and Others, ; The State of Assam Vs. Urmila Datta and Others

In the result, this appeal succeeds partly. The Appellant shall be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5,750/- instead of Rs. 3,750/-. The award is accordingly modified to this extent. This Appellant shall also be entitled to realise costs of this appeal from the Respondent. Counsel''s fee Rs. 100/- if certified.