Saied Aalam vs Harjeet Singh and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.9.2015 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') in MAC Case No. 220/2001 whereby the tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1 partly accepted the application filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has directed the respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-jointly and severely within a period of two months.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the certificate issued by the Doctor wherein it is clearly mentioned that Rs. 8,00,000/- will be spent on further treatment of the appellant in respect of the injuries sustained by him during the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal vide order dated 16.9.2015 shall be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/-.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

It is noticed that earlier the claim petition filed by the appellant was decided vide judgment dated 15.6.2002 wherein the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,18,000/- to the appellant. The appellant preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 246/2003 before this Court which was decided vide judgment dated 8.5.2015 and coordinate Bench of this Court has remanded the matter to the tribunal for fresh decision. The order dated 8.5.2015 is reproduced hereunder:--

"1. 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 & Ors." by which, the learned Judge, MACT, Chittogarh 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, .

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."

After remand the tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the appellant before it regarding the expenses likely to be incurred in future treatment of the appellant. The tribunal has observed that though the appellant has produced a receipt (Ex. 241) of a private hospital wherein it is mentioned that the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- is likely to be incurred in future treatment of the appellant, but the appellant has failed to produce the Doctor in evidence to prove the said document. The tribunal has also observed that though this Court vide judgment dated 8.5.2015 has granted liberty to the appellant to produce any report of medical board of State Government in support of his claim for compensation for future treatment, but the appellant failed to produce any such report of the Medical Board to prove that Rs. 8,00,000/- will be spent in his future treatment. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for future treatment on the basis of report of the surveyor of insurance company Ex. A/1 wherein he reported that Rs. 2,00,000/- will be spent on future treatment of the appellant.

After going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the tribunal has rightly not awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the appellant under the head of future treatment as the appellant has failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the fact that the said amount will be spent on future treatment. The appellant has failed to produce the Doctor, who has given the certificate Ex. 241 that an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- will be spent on future treatment and in absence of his examination as a witness, the same cannot be relied upon. The appellant has also failed to produce any report of the Medical Board of the State Government in support of his claim that Rs. 8,00,000/- will be spent on future treatment despite the fact that this Court vide order dated 8.5.2015 has granted said opportunity to him. When in the report of the surveyor of insurance company, it is mentioned that around Rs. 2,00,000/- will be spent on the future treatment of the appellant, the tribunal has rightly awarded that much of amount as compensation to the appellant under the head of future treatment.

In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.