Sheela Kaundal vs Dhani Ram and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.

The facts necessary for decision of the case are that claimant Sheela Kaundal was travelling in truck No. HP 07-2947. The truck went off the road which resulted in serious injuries to the claimant who filed a petition for grant of compensation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The owner and the insured took up various defences which need not bother this Court since neither the owner nor the insurance company has challenged the award. The Tribunal has held the driver negligent in driving the vehicle and the claimant was held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 40,000.

Mr. Manoj Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the claimant has submitted that the award of the Tribunal is extremely low. According to him, the award is not at all in consonance with the well settled principles for assessment of compensation in motor accident claim cases.

On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Sharma submits that this case calls for no interference since just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.

From the evidence on record, it stands proved that in the accident the claimant suffered a fracture of the left elbow and fracture of left forearm. She also suffered fracture of the hip which resulted in the dislocation of the hip. Immediately after the accident she was taken to the hospital at Bilaspur where she stayed for one night. Because of her serious condition she was referred to Government Hospital, Sector 33, Chandigarh. Exh. PA is the discharge slip and follow-up treatment of the claimant. This shows that she remained admitted from 3.4.1998 to 2.5.1998 in the Ortho Unit in the hospital at Chandigarh. This also shows that she had suffered three fractures, as stated above. Surgery was also performed on the claimant and after her discharge she went to hospital at Chandigarh for follow-up treatment on 30.6.2000 and 19.7.2001. This clearly shows that the claimant was admitted in hospital for a period of one month. Thereafter, she was undergoing treatment as an outdoor patient for a period of more than a year. She has suffered dislocation of the hip, fracture of elbow and fracture of wrist. As per Exh. PE her disability has been assessed at 44 per cent with respect to her left limb and left lower limb. This shows that her left side of the body is immobilized and virtually she cannot perform half of the functions from the left side of her body.

The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitle the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as (i) loss of earnings; (ii) expenses on treatment which include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges, etc.; (iii) loss or diminution in the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body; and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary but all have to be assessed in rupees and paise. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be only token damages.

The claimant is entitled to compensation under various heads. First of all, she is entitled to compensation for expenses on medical treatment which include the cost of services rendered by the attendants. It is well settled law that even gratuitous service rendered by the attendants has to be compensated for since the tortfeasor cannot be given advantage of the gratuitous services rendered by the family members. Under the head of medical treatment, the claimant will also be entitled to expenses of medicines, transportation, etc. In this case, unfortunately the evidence adduced is not up to the mark. It is quite apparent that the claimant did not retain any bills of her medicines during the course of her treatment. She has not been able to produce any bill. Keeping in view the nature of her injuries and the fact that she remained as indoor patient for one month and remained under treatment for a further period of about one year, even without production of any document it would be appropriate to assess the expenses for medicine at Rs. 10,000.

The claimant remained in hospital for one month. She would have required at least two attendants during this period. The boarding and lodging for these attendants would also have to be provided for since admittedly claimant was admitted at Chandigarh whereas she belongs to a village near Bilaspur. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award Rs. 10,000 for these expenses. Claimant has produced two receipts for taxi for a sum of Rs. 3,400. She and her attendants might have undergone other journeys also. She is awarded Rs. 5,000 on account of transportation.

Next comes the question with regard to the monetary loss and income and the estimated future loss of income. Unfortunately, the evidence in this behalf is totally lacking. Though claimant has in her statement made an averment that she worked as a tailor and possessed diploma in tailoring neither any diploma has been produced nor any evidence has been led to show that she was working as a tailor. Therefore, this Court is constrained to assess the income of claimant as a housewife only. The accident had occurred in 1998. Even at that time the contribution of housewife for the work rendered by a housewife could reasonably be assessed at Rs. 2,000 per month. Claimant was in hospital for at least one month and she had been advised rest thereafter for about 3 months. Therefore, she is entitled to total loss of income for four months which comes to Rs. 8,000.

The claimant has become virtually crippled from the left side of the body. She has suffered 44 per cent disability to her left limbs and she cannot function normally. Even if this disability is taken at 25 per cent to the whole body and compensation assessed accordingly, the loss per month comes to Rs. 500 or Rs. 6,000 per year. The claimant was aged about 41 years at the time of accident, therefore, it is reasonable to apply a multiplier of 15 and the compensation on account of loss of future income comes to Rs. 90,000.

The claimant remained in hospital for about one month. She remained under treatment as outdoor patient for one year and had to take rest for three months. She is held entitled to Rs. 25,000 for pain and suffering.

The claimant has also to be compensated for the discomfort and loss of enjoyment of life which she suffered due to the disability caused by the accident. From the evidence, it is apparent that the left limbs of the claimant have been badly affected. She has lost half of the flexibility and movement of the left limbs. She is unable to do normal jobs which she could do before. She cannot walk, sit or stand properly. She has to undergo this deprivation for the rest of her life. She will never be a complete human being and she may have to suffer more as she grows older because of the disability which has been caused to her. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess the damages on account of loss of amenities, loss of enjoyment of life and deprivation to the body at Rs. 45,000. The total compensation, therefore, works out to Rs. 1,93,000.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified and the compensation enhanced from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 1,93,000. Insurance company has already deposited the amount of Rs. 40,000 along with interest. It is ordered to deposit the enhanced award amount of Rs. 1,93,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till deposit of the awarded amount. The interest has been awarded at a lower rate since a large portion of the amount awarded is on account of loss which would have accrued to the claimant in future. Insurance company shall deposit the enhanced amount in the Registry of this Court within 12 weeks failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum w.e.f. today.