Shri Dharam Pal Madhok vs Sharwan Singh and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—Dharam Pal Madhok had filed claim petition u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, seeking a sum of rupees seven lacs as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 30.10.1986 The Tribunal vide its award dated May 12, 1988, awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/- compensation with interest of 12% P.A. on the amount of compensation from the date of claim petition.

Being dissatisfied with the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') the claimant preferred present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that on 30.10.1986, the appellant who was serving in the Police Department, proceeded to Delhi from Mohali in Government Jeep No. PAQ 6788 driven by Constable Sharwan Singh-respondent No. 1. When the vehicle reached a point between Samgarh and Taraori on the G. T. road, the jeep turned turtle on its right side of the road, as a result of which the appellant suffered multiple injuries. He was rushed to Civil Hospital, Karnal and later on shifted to Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh where he was treated by Doctor Sarv Sarup, Senior Resident Neuro Surgery. The appellant thereafter filed a claim petition which was resisted by the State. The appellant in order to prove his case besides himself produced Dr. Sushil Kumar, PW-2, Dr. Kanwar Mohan, Lecturer Eye Department, PGI (PW-4) and Dr. Sarv Sarup, Senior Resident Neuro Sugery, PGI, Chandigarh (PW-5), who had treated him.

The State''s case was that accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep Driver Sharwan Singh respondent No. 1.

The Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as seven issues. The important issue which required the consideration of the Tribunal was whether the appellant received injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. PA. 6788 by respondent Sharwan Singh as alleged. The other issue was as to what amount of compensation, the claimant was entitled and from whom.

On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal returned a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Sharwan Singh, respondent No. 1 and awarded Rs. 30,000/- on account of loss of his left eye, complete disfiguration of claimant''s mouth, and the injuries sustained by him. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded on account of pain and suffering. The claimant was granted Rs. 20,000/ on account of expenses of medicines. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was granted to the claimant as expenses incurred by him on special diet. The total amount awarded to the claimant comes to Rs. 55,000/-. However, the award did not satisfy the appellant being inadequate.

Mr. Anand Sarup, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the appellant, who was a Law Officer in the Police Department of the Punjab Government has been superannuated after the accident. Had the appellant not met with an accident, he would have entered into legal profession and remained in the profession at least for 15 years, but on account of permanent disability caused to him in the accident, his chances of entering into the legal profession have been completely blocked. Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab, vide his communication dated 27th December, 1986, Exhibit PZ recommended to the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, for payment of Rs. one lac as compensation in view of the serious injuries on his head, fore-head, breakage of his facial bones and on account of loss of vision of left eye, but the same has not been given to the appellant. The appellant Shri Dharam Pal Madhok was also present at the time of hearing of the case. On a Court query, the appellant informed the Court that ever since he met with an accident, he is pursuing treatment in the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh and has been advised some neuro surgery also. The appellant in order to fortify his plea, has also produced his medical treatment chart.

I have given due consideration to the matter.

This Court had an occasion to see the appellant also as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment as he was present in the Court.

The agony of the appellant was writ large on his face. Due to permanent loss of one eye scars of mulitple injuries on the face, the facial appearance of the appellant has completely disfigured. What the Court had observed is that the appellant''s total confidence has shattered and his movements are also restricted.

The question now arises for consideration is as to what compensation the appellant is entitled in view of his permanent disability on account of loss of one eye and the injuries sustained by him Before dealing with the question of compensation and damages, it will be worth-while to notice the serious nature of the injuries. The appellant in order to prove the serious nature of the injuries had produced Dr. Kanwar Mohan, Lecturer Eye Deptt., PGI Chandigarh. This witness while appearing as PVV 4 had stated on 8 12-1986 when he examined Shri Dharam Pal Madhok, appellant, he found that the appellant had only perception of light in his left eye. Further as per statement of this witness, the appellant had blood staining of cornea in his left eye. There was bluish discolouration in upper temporal quadrant of left eye. Details of anterior chamber were not visible. This witness had further stated that the appellant''s vision at that time was 6/9 in his right eye. Subsequently when he was examined on 16-1-1987, there was no perception of light in his left eye and that eye had gone into phthisis bulbi. At that time vision in his right eye was c/18. This witness had also stated that when he examined the appellant on 16-10-1987, he found that sight of his left eye had been lost. This witness opined that this loss can affect his right eye during the course of time. According to the Doctor, driving would be risky for the appellant because of restricted visual field. The testimony of this witness also reveals that the possibility of his losing right eye sight with the lapse of time because of the effect of loss of his left eye cannot be ruled out. This witness had stated in clear terms though at that time no treatment was required for his right eye, but the treatment of left eye in the form of keeping this eye under observation would continue. According to the Doctor the total visual disability in the appellant'' case is 40%. Due to the loss of left eye, there is disfiguration of his face as well. He was categoric in saying that the disfiguration is complete.

Another Doctor Sarv Sarup, Senior Resident Neuro Surgery PGI, Chandigarh while appearing as PW-5 bad stated that as per record the appellant was admitted in the Post Graduate Institute on 2-11-1986 and was discharged on 27-11-1986 after having been operated upon in Neuro Surgery oh 10-11-1986. He was found to have commuted fracture, frontal snisus & orbital roof of right eye with dural tear and dural defect. This witness had further stated that when he examined the appellant on 22-1-1987 as per O. P. D. Card, the appellant had by lateral insomnia and irregular depressed scar at the base of nose (old fracture). He was advised to continue luminal and neutropil capful According to the Doctor the appellant bad lost his complete smelling power by lateral insomnia. He had further stated that the treatment of the appellant was likely to continue for 2-3 years. There are some photographs of the appellants on the record which depict the facial appearance of the appellant before and after the accident. Exhibit PD/14 is a photograph of the appellant before the accident in which he looks to be quite smart and young person. Exhibits PD/14 to PD/6, PD/11 to PD/14 are the photographs of the appellant after the alleged accident which depict the disfiguration and ugly look of his face.

Taking into consideration the medical evidence on the record, the case of the appellant is proved beyond any doubt that he sustained serious injuries which resulted in disfiguration, permanent disability on account of loss of one eye, and insomnia etc. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the appellant has to continue his treatment and due to his permanent disability which was assessed at 40% by Dr. Kanwar Mohan (PW-4), mental state of mind and poor health, he cannot enter into legal profession.

In State of Punjab v. Lt. J. P. S. Kapoor 1973 A. C. J 216 the claimant whose annual income was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- was awarded Rs. 2,80,000/- on account of loss of future earnings, Rs. 90,000/- on account of loss of pension and another sum of Rs. 20,000/-was awarded for the loss of enjoyment of life. The accident in that case took place in the year 1964 when the purchase value of the rupee was on higher side.

In Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Kumari Lalita 1973 A. C. J. 79 (Delhi). wherein the accident took place in the year 1961, a girl of 8 years who had been crippled physically and mentally for life was awarded Rs. 50,000/-.

In Mohinder Singh Sohal v. Ramesh Kumar 1981 A. C. J. 326 an Army Jawan aged 18 years earning Rs. 260/- per mensem as his salary was awarded Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of future earning and Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering even there was no finding that the claimant had been rendered incapable of pursuing any vocation after his discharge from the military service.

In Baldev Krishan v. Chander Deep Jain 1984 A. C. J. 163 the injured claimant who was a law student and had suffered head injury, fractures of right frontal, temporal and parietal bones in epilieptic fitts was awarded Rs. 1,92,000/- for loss of future earning, Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- for loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, totalling Rs. 2,47,000/-.

In Hazara Singh v. P. L. Joseph 1986 A. C. J. 277 the claimant, who was an Advocate aged 57 years, had suffered head injury and dislocation of right collar bone. He had to undergo four major operations. There was permanent disability in breathing and concentration. He became unfit to continue his practice and was not able to drive car or scooter. The claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation with 9% interest.

19 In Swatantra Kumar Lamba v. Sheila Didi (1987) 92 P. L.R. 1, the claimant had permanent disability of 20% His movements of ankle were limited and dorsification was limited to half. The injured claimant found it difficult to stand on tip-toes. This Court in that case awarded a sum of Rs. 56,000/- for medical expenses and transportation, Rs. 48,000/- for special diet, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 96,000/- for loss of earning capacity, Rs. 40,000/- for pain, suffering and loss of pleasures of life, Rs. 59,000/- for attendant and gratuitous services and Rs. 1,500/- totalling Rs. 1,78,800/.

In Tejinder Singh Gujral v. Inderjit Singh (1987) 92 P. L. R. 417, the appellant claimant who was an Advocate, had fracture of five ribs on the chest which got maladjusted during replacement operation, cervical spine suffered serious damage, which despite repeated operations continued to give pain, which was life long ; prolonged treatment of many hospitals. Numbness in arm travelled upto little dinger. In appeal, compensation for pain and suffering was enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- by this Court. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 57,600/- was allowed for services of attendants.

In Santokh Singh v. Ajay Diwan 1988 (2) A. C. J. 617 the claimant bad disability between 5 to 20%. This Court, in appeal, allowed Rs. 1,75,000/- as general damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities of life and disabilities and loss of earning capacity, Rs. 5,800/- for medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for special diet, cost of attendant and conveyance expenses. In addition to it, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was allowed for future medical expenses.

In the case in hand, it will be interesting to point out that though Inspector General of Police had recommended a sum of Rs. one lac as stated earlier, but the same was not paid to the appellant. The painful aspect of the matter is that the State Government instead of coming to rescue of the appellant and paying amount recommended by the Inspector General of Police, has contested the matter and did not take compassionate view of the matter. The State Government has failed to be a model employer. It is the duty of the State Govt. to look after its employee, who while on duty, met with an accident and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% on account of loss of one eye. Apart from that, his chances for joining legal profession have completely blocked.

Keeping in view the ratio of judgments (supra) and taking into consideration the appellant''s permanent disability which was assessed at 40% on account of loss of one eye, complete disfiguration, breakge of teeth, insomnia, pain and suffering, loss of earning in profession, inability to drive any vehicle and other factors such as loss of income, expenses on special diet, personal discomfiture, the appellant is awarded in lumpsum Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation with 12% interest including what has been awarded by the Tribunal

The appellant shall also be entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.