K.P. Singh vs Chiranji Lal Etc.
1991 Latest Caselaw 669 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Sapra, J.

(1) This Regular First appeal, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, is directed against the judgment dated July 8, 1986, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, thereby, awarding a compensation of Rs. 25.000.00 to the appellant.

(2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case arc, as under :

"ONOctober 27, 1984, at about 3 P.M. near Rajghat crossing Ring Road, Shanti Van, New Delhi, appellant was going on his two wheeler scooter No. Dhq 9161, to his office in Delhi High Court. When, he reached at the signal point, appellant had to stop his vehicle, as the constable on duty, had stopped the traffic, coming from the side of the appellant. When, the constable gave signal by his hand, for moving the traffic, from the side of the appellant, the appellant also started moving on his two wheeler and reached in the middle of the main road. Then, in the meantime, a car bearing No. Dib 1311, came from the side of the Ito, at a very high speed, which was being driven by respondent no. I, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the scooter of the appellant. The impact was so forceful that the scooter of the appellant was dragged up to a considerable distance and appellant was thrown on the road. As a result of this accident, appellant sustained serious and grievous injuries.

(3) Appellant filed a claim petition, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, for recovery of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation, on account of the injuries, suffered by him, in the accident.

(4) Respondents contested the claim petition. Respondents I and 2 denied the allegations, and the nature of the injuries, suffered by the appellant. However, the accident was not denied. However, it was alleged that it was the scooter of the appellant, which had dashed against the car.

(5) New India Assurance Company, respondent no. 3 herein, also contested the claim petition on various grounds.

(6) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :

(1)Whether petitioner suffered injuries due to anaccident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DIB-1311, while, being driven by respondent no. 1 ? Opp (2) Whether the petition is not maintainable as stated in preliminary objections of M/s. New India Insurance Co. (3) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and from whom ? Opr (4) Relief.

The parties produced oral, as well as, documentary evidence.

(7) On issue no. I, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, held that petitioner, (appellant) had sustained injuries of the nature of joint dislocation of right shoulder and lacerated on the left leg because of the accident, caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. Issue no. 2 was also decided against respondents.

(8) Learned Tribunal, allowed a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 , on account of special damages and a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 on account of general damages, with interest, as mentioned in the judgment.

(9) Most of the facts in the case are not disputed. The main contention of learned Counsel for appellant, is that on account of the accident, the appellant has suffered permanent disability, in the right shoulder. This is established by the statement of Public Witness 3, Dr. J.S. Makhani and the certificate Exhibit AW1/1. The photostate copy of the medical certificate is Exhibit P3/A.

(10) On the oilier hand, Mr. S.M. Suri, appearing for the Insurance Company, urges that appellant has failed to prove any permanent disability and, the extent of alleged permanent disability in the function of the right shoulder.

(11) The first question, which arises for determination is, whether the appellant has suffered any permanent disability in the function of the right shoulder.

(12) In para 11 of the claim petition, the following grievous injuries were mentioned :

(I)Dislocation of right shoulder ; (ii) Cracks in the ribs and damage in lever ; (iii) Deep out lacerated wound on the right side of the right eye ; (iv) Deep cut and lacerated wound on that left ankle (left leg). (v) Serious head injury ; (vi) Bruises and abarsions on all over the body.

(13) Again, the details, with regard to the injuries and the fact, that on account of the fracture in his right shoulder, and deep cut lacerated wound near the ankle of his left leg. appellant was unable to move about and drive a scooter. were given in para 23 (iii). In the written statement, respondents have not specifically denied the nature of the injuries. Respondents I and 2 simply stated that the injuries, if any, received by petitioner, were on account of acts of petitioners only. Respondent no. 3 simply stated "(dewed for want of knowledge)". This is implied admission, in my view. Thus, from the pleadings of the parties, the nature of the injuries, sustained by the appellant, and as mentioned in the claim petition, were not specifically denied. Under law, the nature of injuries were admitted by respondents.

(14) The appellant, to prove the nature of the injuries and the permanent disability, produced Dr. Js Makhani, Professor and head of Orthopaedic Department, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Hospital, New Delhi, as PW3. This witness deposed that detail examination of the appellant, in ward, revealed that he had acromioclavicular joint dislocation in the right shoulder and multiple wounds including a large wound on the left leg. Further that he also received injuries in the leg. This witness further deposed that the appellant was again examined on September 13, 1985, and he issued a certificate, which is Exhibit AW1/1. In thie certificate, it is stated that the appellant had sustained dislocation of right acromioclavicular joint and injury to left leg. It is further stated that acromioclavicular dislocation is a permanent disability in the functions of right shoulder and will cause pain and limitation of shoulder functions.

(15) There was no cross-examination by respondent no. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 did cross-examine the doctor, by putting two questions. In other words, what the Dr. Makhani stated in his statement and the certificate Exhibit AW1/1, is to be admitted as correct. In the certificate. Dr. Makahni has clearly stated that appellant had sustained dislocation of right acromioclavicular joint and injury to left leg. He has also stated that acromioclavicular dislocation is a permanent disability in the functions of right shoulder and will cause pain and limitation of shoulder functions. It may be noticed that at the time of accident, appellant was 36 years of age. In my view, this is a clear case of permanent disability of the right shoulder and that on account of that. appellant has to bear the pain and agony throughout his life. In addition to that, his body is unable to function properly and he is unable to lead a normal life. This is a case of permanent disability and to what extent the disability is, has no relevance.

(16) Now, the next question is, as to what amount of compensation, should be paid to appellant. As. I have already stated above, at the time of accident, the age of the appellant was 36 years, and further, it is a case of permanent disability and the function of the right shoulder has become difficult on account of disability and the appellant is to bear the pain throughout his life. At present, it was stated at Bar, that appellant was drawing a total sum of Rs. 3,200.00 per mensem. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 20.000.00 , awarded on account of general damages, is very inadequate. In my view the amount of compensation of general damages should be increased from Rs. 20,000.00 to Rs. 85,000.00 .

(17) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation of general damages is increased from Rs. 20,000.00 to Rs. 85.000.00 . Thus, the total amount of compensation is increased from Rs. 25.000.00 to Rs. 90,000.00 . Appellant shall also be entitled to interest, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, on the enhanced amount of Rs.65,000.00 , from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. April 22, 1985, till the payment. Respondent no. 3 is directed to make the payment within 6 weeks from today.