Som Raj vs State of Punjab and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—The claim in appeal is for enhancement of compensation.

2 The appellant-claimant Som Raj was a passenger of bus No. PUC 7207 of Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh Depot. When it had crossed village Bhankharpur, a truck approaching from its rear side tried to overtake it. The driver of the bus, in order to provide space enabling the truck to cross the bus, took his vehicle to the extreme left of the road. Two left side wheels of die bus were brought on die berm of the road. The driver of the bus had not slowed down the bus. On reaching the berm, the bus lost its balance and turned turtle. The bus was loaded with passengers. The appellant-claimant Som Raj and some other bus passengers received injuries. He suffered fractures on both his lower arms. The appellant-claimant was taken to primary Health Centre, Dera Bassi, where he was given first aid and later on he was shifted to P.G.I., Chandigarh for treatment. He remained as indoor patient in Nehru Hospital attached with P.G.I., from (sic)10.1983 to 26.10.1983. Both his arms were put in P.O.P. cast which was removed on 2.12.1983.

The appellant-claimant filed claim application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal''). The Tribunal, vide its award dated 1.3.1985, held that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as compensation, from Mohinder Singh, driver of the bus and his employer, State of Punjab. The claim at was also granted interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from die date of filing of the claim petition.

Being not satisfied, me appellant-claimant has filed Ms appeal for the enhancement of compensation.

5 The appellant has impugned the award of die Tribunal on die ground mat it has altogether ignored die principles for calculating die amount of compensation in personal injury cases. The appellant, who was a Government Officer, received very serious injuries and Dr. S.S. Gill of P.G.I., Chandigarh, AW 3, opined that he shall have permanent disability of 30 per cent of two arms. The Tribunal completely ignored me serious nature of the injuries. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal also ignored that his career is at stake as he will have to face difficulty in writing and eating. He shall not be able to drive even a scooter for the rest of his life.

The Counsel for the appellant contended that Tribunal has not granted sufficient compensation for pain and suffering and the compensation awarded on this count is inadequate. No compensation has been awarded for the expenses incurred by the appellant for his treatment. The Counsel further argued that the Doctors at Chandigarh and advised for die operation and this fact has totally been ignored by die Tribunal.

The other contention raised is that die Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9 per cent but it should have been allowed at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from die date of die claim petition.

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for me State of Punjab contended mat die appellant-claimant has been awarded sufficient compensation and mere is no further scope for its enhancement.

In die instant case, die occurrence of die accident and die mannerism in which the appellant sustained injuries is not in dispute. The finding of die negligence recorded against the respondent bus driver does not call for any interference in me appeal.

Dr. S.S. Gill, Lecturer, Orthopaedic Department, P.G.I., Chandigarh, while appearing as AW 3 stated that die patient Som Raj had inter-condylar fracture of his left humerus and fracture of radial head and ulna of me right side. Patient was operated on 22.10.1983 on the left side. He was put under plaster of both die upper limbs. The patient was discharged on 25.10.1983. This witness further stated mat me patient had been visiting thereafter continuously. He had also examined the appellant Som Raj clinically in order to Judge his permanent disability which was assessed as 30 per cent. He gave me following reasons to arrive at this conclusion:

On the left side, his elbow movements are from 20 degrees to 140 degrees and he is having terminal restriction of supination and pronation. On right side his movements are from 40 degrees to 120 degrees. His elbow is fixed in mid prone position and mere is no movement of supination and pronation. The patient is having difficulty in lifting his arm over head. He has difficulty in eating Indian style of food. He has difficulty in combing, drinking water with bom hands and he is having pain in writing. The patient may be having any difficulty in performing sexual intercourse.

The main question which arises for consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation payable to the appellant-claimant keeping in view die nature of injuries sustained by him and his permanent 30 per cent disability.

In Swatantra Kumar Lamba and Another Vs. Sheila Didi and Another, the claimant had permanent disability of 20 per cent. His movement of ankle were limited and dorsiflexion 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. 5,600/- for medical expenses and transportation, Rs. 4,800/ - 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. 5,900/- for attendant and gratuitous services and Rs. 1,500/-; totalling Rs. 1,73,800/-.

In Tejinder Singh Gujral Vs. Inderjit Singh and Another, the appellant-claimant, who was an Advocate, had fracture of five ribs on the chest which got mal-adjusted during the replacement operation; cervical spine suffered serious damage which despite repeated operations continued to give pain, which was lifelong; prolonged treatment at many hospitals. Numbness in arm travelled up to little finger. 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 Vs. Ajay Diwan and Others, claimant had disability between 5 and 20 per cent. 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. 1,000/- was allowed for future medical expenses.

On the consideration of the matter, and specially keeping in view the decisions of this Court in Swatantra Kumar Lamba and Another Vs. Sheila Didi and Another, Tejinder Singh Gujral Vs. Inderjit Singh and Another, and Santokh Singh 1988 ACJ (P&H), I am of the view that the appellant-claimant has not been awarded sufficient compensation for pain and suffering, permanent 30 per cent disability and special diet. The Tribunal has not granted fair interest to the claimant. Dr. S.S. Gill, AW 3, who had clinically examined the appellant, had adjudged 30 per cent disability. The appellant has difficulty in combing of his hair and even cannot drink water with his both hands. He is also facing difficulty in writing.

During the course of arguments, on a Court question, the claimant, who has now got himself enrolled as an Advocate, has expressed his inability to drive the scooter as both of his elbows and forearms have been impaired due to the accident. On right side, his elbow movements are from 40 degrees to 120 degrees. His elbow is fixed in mid prone position and there is no movement of supination and pronation. Dr. S.S. Gill, AW 3, had also stated that the appellant may be having difficulty in performing sexual intercourse.

In view of the ratio of the judgment (supra), and taking into consideration appellant''s permanent disability, the appellant, awarded Rs. 25,000/- for the pain and suffering and Rs. 30,000/- for permanent disability in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant shall also be entitled to 12 per cent interest instead of 9 per cent as awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel''s fee in assessed as Rs. 2,000/-.