Vinod Kumar @ Bittoo vs Roshni and Others

G. P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant Vinod Kumar seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs. 12,110/- awarded to him for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.03.2006. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital. He was found to have tenderness on his left hip. On obtaining X-ray pelvis with both hips, it was found that the Appellant had suffered # intertrochanteric right femur. He was advised internal fixator(DHS under c-arm). The Appellant was referred to other Hospital as the said facility was not available.

The Appellant''s family removed him to Santom Hospital. The Appellant claimed that he obtained treatment from private doctors at Bawana which continued for eight months. His left leg remained in plaster for three months; he remained confined to bed for six months and he had to take physiotherapy for two months. He claimed that he incurred Rs. 20,000/- on his medical treatment and physiotherapy. He spent Rs. 10,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 10,000/- on special diet. In his affidavit Ex. Pw1/A, the Appellant testified that he was running a barber shop and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. He was unable to attend to his work for ten months.

On appreciation of evidence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of motor car No. DL-2CV-2010 by the Respondent No. 3. No documentary evidence was produced by the Appellant in respect of the expenditure incurred by him towards his treatment. A compensation of Rs. 12,110/- awarded to the Appellant under different heads is tabulated hereunder:

Sl.No.

Compensation under various heads

Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

1.

Compensation for Pain and Sufferings

Rs. 10,000/-

2.

Compensation for Expenses incurred on Medical Treatment, Special Diet and Conveyance

Rs. 2,110/-

3.

Compensation on account of Loss of Income

Nil

Total

Rs. 12,110/-

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant suffered serious fracture resulting into his long confinement. Although, the Appellant did not produce any documentary evidence with regard to the expenditure, yet the Claims Tribunal was under obligation to make an assessment of the expenditure as well as loss of income suffered by him.

On the other hand, Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. argues that in the absence of any bills, no amount towards treatment, special diet or conveyance could have been awarded. The learned counsel contended that there is no evidence that the Appellant''s shop had to be shut because of the injuries suffered by him. Therefore, it cannot be said that he suffered any loss of income on account of injuries suffered by him.

The Appellant filed his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and entered the witness box as PW1. He proved the OPD slip Ex. Pw1/1 from BJR Hospital which clearly revealed that the Appellant suffered # intertrochanteric right femur. His testimony that he continued his treatment and remained confined to bed for a period of six months was not challenged in cross-examination. The Appellant''s testimony with regard to loss of income was not challenged in the cross-examination by giving suggestion with regard to any alternative arrangement in the shop. The Appellant''s income of Rs. 9,000/- per month is supported by his Income Tax Return for Rs. 1,08,750/- in the A.Y. 2005-06. Thus, the Appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 54,000/- ( Rs. 9,000 x6) towards loss of income.

It is true that the Appellant has not produced any evidence with regard to the expenditure on his treatment. Considering the fact that the Appellant suffered a # intertrochanteric right femur, he was taken to Santom Hospital and remained under treatment with private medical practioners at Bawana (which has not been challenged), I would award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as expenditure towards his medical treatment including physiotherapy. Considering the nature of the injuries and the period of confinement at home, I would award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 2,000/- towards conveyance.

It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the parts of the body where the injuries were sustained; surgeries (if any) underwent by the victim; confinement in the hospital and the duration of the treatment. Considering that the Appellant remained in plaster for three months and remained confined to bed for a period of six months, I would award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering.

The overall compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:

Sl. No.

Compensation under various heads

Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

Awarded by this Court

1.

Loss of Income

Nil

Rs. 54,000/-

2.

Medical Treatment, Special Diet and Conveyance

Rs. 2,110/-

Rs. 17,000/-

3.

Pain and Suffering

Rs. 10,000/-

Rs. 20,000/-

Total

Rs. 12,110/-

Rs. 91,000/-

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 78,890/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment. The Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest in the name of the Appellant with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch within six weeks which shall be released to him immediately on deposit.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending Applications stand disposed of.