Saied Aalam vs Harjeet Singh and Others

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—This Misc. Appeal filed by the claimant-Said Aalam is arising out of the judgment and award dated 15.06.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in MACT Case No. 220/2001 "Saied Aalam v. Harjeet Singh and Ors." by which, the learned Judge, MACT, Chittorgarh had allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant and allowed compensation of Rs. 5,18,000/-. The claimant has filed the present misc. appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the claimant-Saied Aalam S/o Fateh Mohammed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 15.06.2002 in MACT Case No. 220/2001. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries suffered by the claimant-Saied Aalam was Rs. 5,18,000/-. The award is said to have been satisfied by the respondent-National Insurance Company, New Delhi.

The unfortunate accident in question took place on 06.08.1996 when the claimant-driver was driving the Truck bearing registration number GJ-9 T/5640 on the way leading from Chittorgarh to Balsad Nagar. The truck was loaded with marble slabs and it met with a head on collision accident with a Tanker having registration number HR-29 D/2377 being driven by the respondent No. 1 Harjeet Singh rashly and negligently. The said accident took place near Sardar Bridge on Narbada River near National Highway No. 8. In the said accident, the claimant-Saied Aalam suffered serious injuries inasmuch as his stomach was burst and the intestines came out and on account of fall of marble slabs on his leg, the length of the leg was also shortened after medical treatment given to him. For all the injuries, the claimant was allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 5,18,000/-. The claim petition was filed by the claimant claiming Rs. 20,06,000/- as compensation and against which, an award of Rs. 5,18,000/-was passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Chittorgarh.

Today, the learned counsel Mr. Abhinav Jain appearing for the appellant-claimant has filed an application (IA No. 2633/2015) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to adduce additional medical evidence. According to the application, as per the medical advice, the claimant Saied Aalam is now required to undergo further surgeries and skin grafting for which, as per the report of Dr. Devashree Chhaparwal, MS Orthopaedics (Mumbai), Orthopaedic Surgeon of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur along with Dr. Manish Chhaparwal, M.S. Orthopaedic (Mumbai), the approximate cost for such surgeries now to be done on the body of the claimants comes to Rs. 8,00,000/-. The learned counsel also urged that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12 as against the multiplier of 16. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 .

Copy of the aforesaid application along with additional evidence has been supplied to the learned counsel Mr. R.K. Singhal appearing for the respondent National Insurance Company.

It may also be noticed here that while deciding issue No. 2, in para 17 of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal had allowed Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant towards future medical expenses for surgery etc. The relevant portion of the discussion made by the Tribunal in para 17 is quoted herein below for ready reference:-

The said component of Rs. 25,000/- allowed by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses was included in the overall compensation of Rs. 5,18,000/-.

The claimant underwent some surgical operations but now for restoration of his body to normalcy as far as possible and the complications out of such accidental injuries, the claimant may require more surgical interventions with the costs of Rs. 8,00,000/- was suggested as per the report dated 27.01.2014 of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. The said report is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

"Shri Sayeed Aalam, 47 years, M, requires incisional hernia repair post laparotomy done in 1996 (due to accident). Patient also needs urethroplasty (post urethral structure) and an cosmetic surgery of abdomen (skin grafting). Patient has an approx. cost of around 8 lakhs including stay for around a month, ICU, and medicine charges along with follow-up. Patient''s condition has to be re-assessed in operation theatre for colostomy done in case need be."

The fact of accident, liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation and the injuries suffered by the claimant for which compensation to the extent of Rs. 5,18,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal and that has already been satisfied by the insurance company are not in dispute and, therefore, the limited controversy involved in the present case is, as to whether and to what extent, the claimant is entitled for the enhancement of the compensation in view of the changed circumstances now.

This Court is of the opinion that in view of the fresh medical evidence adduced by the claimant before this Court by filing the application (IA No. 2633/2015) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure today, the matter deserves to be sent back to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for considering such additional evidence and further pass fresh orders with the right to the non-claimant-Insurance Company to adduce the rebuttal evidence, if any, and thereafter, the learned Tribunal may decide the question as to how much just and fair additional compensation should be awarded to the claimant for such future surgical treatment now to be undertaken by him.

Accordingly and in view of the above, the application (IA No. 2633/2015) filed by the claimant-Saied Aalam under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure thus stands allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh to consider such additional evidence adduced by the claimant along with the aforesaid application. The report of the Medical Board of Government Hospital may also be produced by the claimant before the learned Tribunal which may also be considered. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide such quantum of additional claim of the claimant within a period of three months from today.

The parties, in the first instance, are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal concerned on 25.05.2015 and without any delay, the learned Tribunal shall decide the said quantum of additional compensation within a time of three months from today.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the remand of the case to the Tribunal concerned. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below and to the parties concerned forthwith.