Neeraj Rana vs Sandeep and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.61,684/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 29.11.2009. The finding on negligence is not disputed by the driver, owner and the Insurer. Thus, the same has attained finality.

The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is tabulated hereunder:-

Sl. No.

Compensation under various heads

Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

1.

Treatment Expenses

Rs.33,872/-

2.

Pain and Suffering

Rs.10,000/-

3.

Special Diet and Conveyance

Rs.2,000/-

4.

Loss of Income

Rs.15,812/-

Total

Rs.61,684/-

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and duration of treatment, the compensation awarded is very meager.

Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri. Being dissatisfied with the treatment, the Appellant got himself shifted to Satya Bhama Hospital, Nangloi, Delhi where he remained admitted from 29.11.2009 to 06.12.2009 i.e. for eight days.

The Appellant suffered fracture on fourth metatarsal on his right hand and underwent procedure in Satya Bhama Hospital on 29.11.2009. The Appellant filed his Affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and entered the witness box as PW-1. He deposed that he was working as a driver on RTV owned by Himanshu Arora. He was getting a salary of Rs.400/- per day and Rs.50/- per day as diet charges. He stated that he could not attend his duties for about six months. He had also to engage an Attendant at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month for six months. He claimed to have spent Rs.30,000/- on conveyance and Rs.40,000/- on special diet.

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) enjoins the Claims Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation.

In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , the Supreme Court observed that the determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales. At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them.

The Appellant''s testimony that he was working as a driver on RTV owned by Himanshu Arora was not challenged in cross-examination. It is true that the Appellant did not produce any evidence with regard to the salary being paid to him yet, his driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle was proved on record as Ex.PW-1/1.

In the year 2009, I would assume salary of a driver of a commercial vehicle to be at least Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering that the Appellant suffered fracture of fourth metatarsal he would not be able to attend his work as a driver for at least four months. The compensation of Rs.15,812/- awarded towards loss of income is thus enhanced to Rs.24,000/- (6,000/- x 4).

Similarly, the compensation of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards conveyance and special diet needs to be raised to Rs.5,000/- each.

Considering the period of hospitalization, long duration of treatment, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is raised to Rs.20,000/-.

In view of the injuries suffered, the Appellant must not have been in a position to take care of himself for a period of at least one month. Even if the Appellant did not engage any Attendant and the gratuitous services were rendered by some or other of his relations, the Appellant is entitled to a suitable compensation towards gratuitous services ( Delhi Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Lalita, ). Thus, I would award compensation of Rs.4,000/- towards gratuitous services.

The compensation awarded by this Court is tabulated as under:-

Sl. No.

Compensation under various heads

Awarded by this Court

1.

Treatment Expenses

Rs.33,872/-

2.

Pain and Suffering

Rs.20,000/-

3.

Special Diet and Conveyance

Rs.10,000/-

4.

Loss of Income

Rs.24,000/-

5.

Gratuitous Services

Rs.4,000/-

Total

Rs.91,872/-

The overall compensation is enhanced from Rs.61,684/- to Rs. 91,872/-.

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,188/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks and shall be released in favour of the Appellant.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.