Ranjana Khurana vs Mahender Singh and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- awarded in favour of the Appellant Ranjana Khurana for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 24.08.1990. In the absence of any Appeal by the Insurer, driver and the owner, the finding on negligence has attained finality between the parties.

Apart from head injury, the Appellant suffered fracture of left hand, right knee, hip bone and thigh bone. She also suffered injuries on her left hand and got some stitches. Initially, she was removed to Jasaa Ram Hospital where she remained admitted for two days. She was then removed to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where she regained consciousness after 15 days.

The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- which is tabulated hereunder:-

Sl. No.

Compensation under various heads

Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

1

For Pain and Suffering

Rs. 50,000/-

2

For Expenses on treatment done and to be done

Rs. 80,000/-

3

For expenses on Conveyance

Rs. 15,000/-

4

Expenses incurred on employing Maid Servant

Rs. 15,000/-

Total

Rs. 1,60,000/-

The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-

(i) Full compensation has not been awarded towards expenditure incurred on the medical treatment.

(ii) No separate compensation was awarded for future treatment.

(iii) Compensation awarded towards engaging an attendant is on the lower side.

(iv) The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side.

(v) No compensation was awarded towards loss of income.

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) provides for payment of just and fair 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. Relevant para of the report is extracted hereunder:-

5......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''. All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards.

The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as expenditure on medical treatment already received and to be received in future. The bills in respect of the treatment already received were totalled up by the learned counsel for the parties (during hearing) which itself comes to Rs. 81,038/-. Some of the small bills might not have been preserved. In the circumstances, I would award a sum of Rs. 85,000/- towards expenditure on treatment.

The Appellant placed on record a certificate dated 11.10.1993 (Ex. PW2/18) issued by Dr. Amer Saxena. It goes to show that the Appellant had to receive long term treatment to prevent convulsion(fits). The Appellant was under treatment of Dr. Rajesh Acharya since 21.03.1997. He deposed that the Appellant''s treatment would continue for one or two years. If after two years the fits get controlled, then the medicines could be stopped. He deposed that the Appellant shall have to undergo CAT Scan and EEG examination. In the circumstances, the Appellant is entitled to a compensation towards future treatment also. In the absence of any specific evidence, I make a guess work and award a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.

The Appellant deposed that she used to give tuitions to the children of primary classes. She would earn Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month from tuitions. The details of the children and parents were not given. No parents were examined to prove this fact. In the circumstances, it would be difficult to believe that the Appellant was taking tuitions.

She deposed that she had employed one maid servant named Shyamoli Dey. PW7 Inder Khurana, the Appellant''s husband deposed that the Appellant cannot sit properly on the floor, she cannot walk fast and she cannot run. He testified that they have engaged a maid servant to look after the household work and his wife. He deposed that he paid Rs. 600/- per month to the maid servant, which was later on increased to Rs. 800/- per month. No expert evidence was produced by the Appellant that she cannot carry out normal day to day household work after recovering from the injuries. Admittedly, the Appellant did not suffer any permanent disability. As stated above, no expert evidence was produced to prove that the Appellant cannot carry out day to day household work after recovering from the injuries. Considering that apart from the fracture of left hand, right knee, hip bone and thigh bone, the Appellant suffered head injuries. I would increase the expenses for employing a maid servant from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. This accident took place in the year 1990. Award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering considering the nature of injuries and the year of accident is just and reasonable.

Thus, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 45,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Petition till its payment.

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 45,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the Appellant in the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and shall be released on deposit.

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