Sadhana Mandal vs Md Riyajul And Ors

Heard Mr. A.R. Agarwal, leaned counsel for the appellant and Ms. R.D. Majumdar,learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company.

This appeal is by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 04.03.2013passed by the MACT, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 253/2006.

The undisputed facts, which may be relevant for disposal of this appeal are that theclaimant Sadhana Mandal, sustained injury in a motor vehicle

accident. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged above 60 years and was a pension holder. Because of sustaining injury in the accident, the

claimant filed an application before the MACT, Dhubri seeking compensation and the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 1,41,720/-,

which consisted of Rs. 85,720/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 36,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- towards future treatment and Rs.

10,000/- towards pain & suffering.

Unsatisfied with the award, the claimant preferred the instant appeal seekingenhancement of the compensation.

Learned counsel Mr. A.R. Agarwal submits, that the claimant sustained grievous injuryand he had suffered loss of earning. However, learned

Tribunal did not consider the future loss of earning and the quantum of amount awarded on account of general damages for pain shock and suffering

was also very meager, and as such urged for enhancement of compensation. Further contention of the learned counsel is that the interest given by the

learned Tribunal was also on lower side and urged for enhancement.

The claimant examining herself on oath deposed that she sustained grievous injury,which resulted in permanent disablement and because of the

injury, she has been rendered unable to lift heavy weight and also restriction of movement. In support of the injury, the claimant proved Ext. 1, 2, 3, 4,

8, 9, 10, 12 to 50 being the documents relating to treatment and injury sustained by her. From the medical document, more particularly, Ext. 1, 9 and

10, it appears, that the claimant sustained fracture of right hip joint and dislocation and severe head injury. Evidently, the claimant was in hospital for

about 10 days. No evidence was adduced to show that the claimant sustained any permanent disablement for the injury. The Apex Court in Rajkumar

Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 succinctly laid down the guidelines for granting compensation in case of personal injury in paragraphs 6

as under.

“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the inured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Â Loss of earning during the period of treatment ;

(b)Â Loss of earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of theinjuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is

specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (ii), (v) and (vi)

relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)

and loss of expectation of life.â€​

Since there was no evidence of permanent disablement, as per the guideline inRajkumar Vs. Aay Kumar (supra), the compensation has to be

awarded on account of medical expenditure and expenses incidental thereto, general damages for pain shock and suffering and loss of earning during

treatment. In the instant case, apparently, the special damage on account of medical expenditure was awarded on the basis of the evidence brought on

record. In addition to that, learned tribunal also awarded additional amount of Rs. 10000/for future treatment and Rs. 36000/- was awarded for loss of

earning for the period of treatment. Having considered the nature of injury and the period of hospitalization, in my considered view, the amount

awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning for the period of treatment appears to be just and no enhancement is required. However, having

considered the gravity of the injury and the suffering of the claimant, the quantum of amount granted by the Tribunal towards general damages

appears for on lower side and in my considered view requires some enhancement on this count. Accordingly, the quantum of award on account of

pain shock and suffering is raised to Rs. 30000/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 10000/-, the award is therefore enhanced by an amount

of Rs. 20000/- (Rs. 30000-10000).

With the above enhancement of Rs. 20000/-, the appeal stands allowed. The InsuranceCompany shall pay the additional amount of Rs. 20000/-, by

depositing the same with the Tribunal within 6 weeks.

The appeal stands disposed of.

Send back the LCR.