Sunil Kumar vs Vinod Kumar and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Sunil Kumar, the claimant-appellant brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the injuries he suffered in a road side accident that took place on 17.02.2009. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 28.02.2011 has awarded a sum of Rs. 82,800/- as compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant. On 17.02.2009 Sunil Kumar and his cousin brother Dharam Vir were going towards Panchkula on their motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-35J-7615. The motorcycle was being driven by Sunil Kumar at a moderate speed. When they were ahead of Sekho Palace, Baltana (Zirakpur), a truck bearing registration NO. HP-12A-9947 came from Zirakpur side. It was driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and it had hit the motorcycle of the claimant from behind, on account of which the claimant and his cousin brother fell down and suffered injuries. The claimant suffered fractures in his right leg below knee and four ribs right side and his hip joint right side was dislocated. After the accident, he was taken to General Hospital Sector 6, Panchkula from where he was referred to Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh where he remained admitted from 17.02.2009 to 20.03.2009. He has claimed that he was still bed ridden and spent Rs. 60,000/- in his treatment.

The respondents have denied the averments of the claimant on both the aspects i.e. the cause of accident and the quantum of compensation. Respondent No. 3 has claimed that the amount claimed is highly exaggerated.

Learned Tribunal has noticed the disability certificate Ex. P-5, medical bills etc. Ex. P6 to Ex. P59 and treatment cards Ex. P2 to Ex. P4. Ex. P66 to Ex. P83 are again the medical bills etc. for a period from 11.01.2010 to 13.03.2010. Learned Tribunal ignored the bills from Ex. P66 to Ex. P83 as the claimant has not stated as to from whom he took treatment during this period. He has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,800/- as compensation for the expenses on his treatment, Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 7000/- for special diet, transportation etc. and Rs. 25000/- for loss of income due to permanent disability of 25% of right lower limb. So, in this case, a sum of Rs. 82,800/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount awarded as loss of income due to disability in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is grossly inadequate. According to him, the amount awarded as Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 7000/- for special diet and transportation etc. are also on lower side. He has further submitted that no amount has been awarded for the attendant charges.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the amount awarded is just and proper. According to him, the disability is of 25% but that pertains to the right lower limb only and it is not qua the whole body. He has further submitted that the amounts allowed under other heads are also adequate.

The claimant has been 18 years old. He has claimed that he was having an income of Rs. 8000/- per month by doing tuition work. He has been left with 25% disability of right lower limb. Though he claimed that he lost memory for 15 to 20 days, there was nothing on the record to prove it.

Learned Tribunal has ignored bills from Ex. P66 to P83 and has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,800 as compensation for the amount proved by way of documents Ex. P9 to P64. After the treatment at the hospital, a person may require treatment as outdoor patient. In that event, he may not have the name of the doctor and the prescriptions and bills may also not have the name of the doctor mentioned clearly. In that event the victim would not be in a position to tell the name of the doctor. Taking into account this fact as well as the fact that some amount is spent even without obtaining bills, I assess a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant for his expenses in his treatment.

The claimant has remained hospitalized for 15 or 16 days at Government Medical College and Hospital Chandigarh. He suffered a number of bony injuries. He even suffered injury in the eye which was cured. His pain and suffering cannot be compensated by allowing him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The said amount therefore, requires to be revised upwards and I assess a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for his pain and suffering.

With regard to special diet and charges on attendant and transportation, it has to be kept in mind that these things would have been required by the claimant for a couple of months. In these circumstances, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- for special diet, transportation charges etc. is not sufficient. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- would, however, cover the expenses on special diet, transportation and attendant charges.

Coming to the loss of income during treatment, loss of income due to permanent disability and loss of future enjoyment of life, I believe that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- may be sufficient for compensating him for loss of income during treatment, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of income due to permanent disability and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of future enjoyment of life. In this way, the appellant-claimant is found to be entitled to Rs. 1,70,000/- as compensation. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 82,800/- to Rs. 1,70,000/-. The said amount shall be payable to the claimant by the respondents with interest as per the terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.