Vinod vs Ashok Kumar and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the injured-claimant for enhancement of compensation. The claim petition brought by the claimant Vinod u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') has been allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 12.05.2011 in a sum of Rs. 1,10,500/- as compensation. On 06.04.2010 at about 8.30 PM the claimant met with an accident with Honda City car bearing registration No. HR-70D-0021. In the accident, the claimant suffered multiple and serious injuries including fracture of various bones. He was taken to Janta Hospital Barwala and he was shifted to AMC Hospital Hisar and then to Jindal Hospital Hisar. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was spent in his treatment. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is sought as compensation.

The claim petition is resisted by the respondents. They have denied the aforesaid averments of the claimant and have denied the claimant to deserve a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for his injuries.

Learned Tribunal, in the statement of Dr. Vikram Jain, PW-1, noticed that Vinod Kumar was brought to Jindal Hospital, Hisar on 08.04.2010 and he remained there upto 17.04.2010. This witness has also stated that on 09.04.2010, the claimant was operated upon. Dr. Anant Ram, PW-2 has also stated about hospitalization of the claimant at AMC Hospital, Hisar between 06.04.2010 and 08.04.2010. Taking a sum of Rs. 90,500/- to have been spent by the claimant in his treatment, learned Tribunal has awarded that amount alongwith a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which was assessed towards pain and suffering, special diet, loss of income etc. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs. 1,10,500/- has been awarded as compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant remained hospitalized for more than 11 days. According to him, he underwent operation during that period. According to him, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges and transportation charges. He has, moreover, submitted that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, special diet and loss of income is on a lower side.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has submitted that only a sum of Rs. 12,500/- has been proved on the record as spent in the treatment of the claimant and against that amount, a sum of Rs. 90,500/- has been awarded for expenses on treatment, which is wholly unjustified. According to him, this amount would, thus, cover all the compensation which according to learned counsel for the appellant has not been awarded by the Tribunal.

A careful perusal of the award would show that the amount of Rs. 12,500/- is only the amount charged at AMC Hospital, Hisar. This does not include any amount charged at Jindal Hospital, Hisar where the appellant underwent an operation and remained hospitalized for nine days. He has proved on record so many bills and a total of all these bills is found by the Tribunal as a sum of Rs. 90,500/-. So it cannot be said that learned Tribunal has allowed a sum of Rs. 90,500/- on the proof of expenses in a sum of Rs. 12,500/- only.

Having it established on the record that a sum of Rs. 90,500/- is awarded rightly by learned Tribunal for the expenses incurred by the appellant in his treatment, I have to see as to whether Rs. 20,000/- would be sufficient compensation under all other heads. In my opinion, the answer to this question has to be in the negative. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- would not cover all the heads of pain and suffering, expenses on special diet, loss of income during treatment, attendant charges and transportation charges. The claimant had undergone operation with regard to the injuries he suffered in the accident. He remained hospitalized for about eleven days. Thereafter he would not have been in a position to resume his day to day work. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- can be sufficient to compensate the appellant for his pain and suffering but it will not be sufficient to compensate the appellant under all other heads also. A person, who suffers fractures, even though operated upon, would have to remain bedridden for a couple of months and would be having restricted movement for another one month. Thus for three months he lost his income for which a sum of Rs. 12,000/- should be allowed. Under the heads of special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges, I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each. Taking the amount of Rs. 90,500/- as allowed for medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, I find the appellant to be entitled to Rs. 1,52,500/- as compensation for the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,10,500/- to Rs. 1,52,500/- which shall be payable to the claimant by the respondents and with interest as allowed by the Tribunal.