Rakesh Kumar vs Mukesh Kumar and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 3.3.2011 in a sum of Rs. 1,77,675/-. The claim petition had been brought u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- for the injuries he has suffered in a roadside accident that took place on 15.9.2009. The claimant has claimed himself to be aged 21 years at the time of accident. According to him, he was working with Indian Oil Corporation and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. According to him, he was also an agriculturist. He has further submitted that he was firstly taken to General Hospital, Mohindergarh and from there, he was taken to Birendra Hospital, Rewari where he remained hospitalized from 15.9.2009 to 11.10.2009. He has claimed a sum of Rs. 59,854/- in his treatment at the hospital, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on conveyance and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet.

The aforesaid averments of the claimant have been controverted by the respondents. They have denied the claimant to be entitled to Rs. 12.00 lacs as compensation.

Framing issues and taking evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal assessed the compensation in the following manner:-

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant suffered disability to the extent of 26% on account of post traumatic mild stiffness of left knee and ankle with amputation of left first and second toe with partial loss of stability. According to him, the claimant is a young boy of the age of 21 years and the amount assessed as compensation is on a very lower side.

Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that amount assessed as compensation in the case of the appellant is already on a higher side. According to them, the compensation awarded to the claimant is more than adequate and no further enhancement in the same is permissible.

While assessing compensation for the expenses incurred in the treatment, Tribunals act as if they are the employers reimbursing the amount spent by the employee in his treatment. They tend to be very precise in awarding the compensation under this head. They do not take care of the fact that in accident trauma cases, some amount is spent without collecting bills by the attendants in the beginning. So, some amount should be added to the amount proved to have been spent in order to take care of the amounts spent without collecting bills.

The Tribunal in this case has assessed Rs. 61,475/- as the amount spent in the treatment of the appellant. I find that a sum of Rs. 65,000/- should have been awarded under the said head.

While awarding compensation for permanent partial disablement at Rs. 70,000/- learned Tribunal did not take care of the fact that the appellant has been left with permanent disability. He has lost even the stability and, therefore, he would lose a lot on future enjoyment of life. Under this head, I assess a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation. Learned Tribunal has assessed a sum of Rs. 5,200/- as compensation for transportation charges and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for special diet and attendant charges. In this regard, I assess a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for special diet, transportation charges and attendant charges and adding to it the amounts of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- awarded on account of pain and suffering and loss of income during treatment respectively, I find the claimant to be entitled to Rs. 2,26,000/- as compensation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The amount of Rs. 1,77,675/- assessed by the Tribunal as compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced to Rs. 2,26,000/- with other terms regarding rate of interest and mode of payment etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.