Shri Shamsher Singh vs Shri Jagdish Kumar and Others

M.L. Mehta, J.—The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 18th August, 2005 of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (''the Tribunal'' for short) which came to be passed in the claim petition No. 324/2003 (Old No. 398/2003) filed by the Appellant for seeking compensation on account of injuries which were sustained by him in the road accident which took place on 26th April, 2003 when he was going on his two wheeler scooter and was hit by a truck bearing registration No. HP-14-2565 being driven by Respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner. The said truck was stated to be owned by Respondent No. 2 and insured with Respondent No. 3. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,16,327/- which was made up on account of pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-, medicines and medical treatment Rs. 28,930/-, special diet and conveyance Rs. 20,000/-, employing attendant Rs. 24,000/- loss of enjoyment, amenities and general damages Rs. 50,000/-, loss of expectancy of life Rs. 20,000/- and on account of loss of leaves Rs. 1,43,397/-.

The impugned award is assailed by the Appellant alleging the compensation to be on lower side. The Appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation on different counts. The main grievance of the Appellant is that he suffered disability to the extent of 55 per cent which lowered his earning capacity and future prospects of earning. It is also alleged that the compensation awarded on account of loss of enjoyment of amenities and general damages, on account of loss of expectancy of life, pain and sufferings etc. are on lower side.

The Appellant was aged about 56 years and posted as Inspector in Delhi Police and getting Rs. 14,000/- per month as salary at the time of accident. After the accident, he was admitted in St. Stephens'' Hospital where he remained admitted from 26.04.2003 to 09.07.2003. A sum of Rs. 1,70,165/- was the amount of medical expenses of the hospital. The injuries suffered by the Appellant were diagnosed as crush injuries. An operation was performed upon the Appellant and a fixation was inserted in his leg. As per the Appellant, his leg shortened by five inches and he could walk only with the help of a walker and a specially made shoe. He stated to have spent Rs. 2,00,000/- on his treatment in the hospital. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 1,76,000/- was reimbursed to him by his department. The Appellant had submitted few bills totaling to Rs. 28,930/- of expenditure towards medical treatment which remained to be reimbursed by his department. The Tribunal awarded compensation of this amount accepting the same to be correct. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded on account of pain and suffering. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant and the period of hospitalization, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- ought to have been awarded to the Appellant on account of pain and suffering. Accordingly, the Appellant would be entitled to the enhanced sum of Rs. 20,000/- on this count.

As noted above, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet and conveyance, which again, to my mind, seems to be on lower side. Keeping in view the period of hospitalization and the nature of injuries, the compensation is assessed as Rs. 20,000/- each on account of special diet and conveyance and accordingly the Appellant would be entitled to additional sum of Rs. 20,000/- on this count.

I do not see any infirmity in awarding Rs. 24,000/- to the Appellant on account of employing attendant.

However, award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Appellant by the Tribunal on account of loss of enjoyment of amenities and general damages is also seen to be on lower side. Likewise, compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of expectancy of life is also on lower side. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant and the period of hospitalization, I would assess the compensation on account loss of enjoyment of amenities and general damages to be Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of expectancy of life. Consequently, the Appellant would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively on these two counts.

I do not see any infirmity in awarding compensation Rs. 1,43,397/- to the Appellant on account of loss of leaves.

In view of the above discussions, the Appellant is found to be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 90,000/-, which Respondent No. 3, being the insurer, would be liable to pay.

Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 90,000/- within 30 days of this order failing which interest @7.5% would be payable to the Appellant from the date of this order till the date of realization.

The appeal stands disposed of.