Prakash Bhatia vs Subhash Chander Suri And Ors.
1993 Latest Caselaw 588 Del

JUDGMENT

C.L. Chaudhry, J.

(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The appellant was involved in an accident on 1st September. 1973 at about 6.00 p.m. She filed a claim compensation before the Mact claiming a compensation of Rs. 75,000.00 on the following allegations.

(2) That the appellant was occupying the pillion seat of a two wheeler scooter being No. Ust 8315. It was being driven by Rakesh Singh. She was returning home and the scooter was coming from the side of the Bengali Market. When the scooter had practically crossed the crossing of Curzon Road and Hailey Road, Ashok Kumar, driving taxi bearing No. Dlt 4731 at an excessive speed, unmindful of the traffic on the road and in violation of traffic rules knocked down the scooter. The taxi driver neither slowed down the speed nor applied brakes. The scooter was being driven carefully and without any negligence whatsoever. As a result of the impact, the appellant was thrown away on the road. The driver of the scooter fell down along with the scooter. With the direct impact of the bumper of the taxi with the leg of the appellant, the leg sustained compound fracture. The applicant was removed to the emergency ward of the Willington Hospital with injuries all over the body. Leg of the petitioner remained under plaster for practically 11 weeks. She was confined to bed and had to engage a maid servant to look after her and the house. She was forced to lie down motionless and was bed-ridden. Constant bed use gave rise to bed sores and great weakness. She developed headache which haunts her at regular intervals. She was a young woman of 49 years and was employed as a Lady Welfare Superintendent, Central Trunk Exchange, Kidwai Bhawan, New Delhi drawing salary of Rs. 600.00 per month. She lost pecuniary expectation of her promotion apart from the untold pain and agony undergone by the applicant on account of the injuries she had suffered. According to the appellant, she suffered injuries i.e. Compound fracture of the leg injuries on back open wound injuries, severe sprain, body completely benumbed etc., extensive bruises all over the body especially arms and legs, developed permanent headache, sickness feeling, disfigurement, deformity and permanent disability. With these allegations she claimed a compensation of Rs. 75,000.00.

(3) The petition was contested oh behalf of the respondents on the following issues : (i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of taxi No. Dlt 4731 on the part of the respondent No. 2. (ii) To what amount of compensation is she entitled and from whom. (iii) Relief.

(4) On issue No. 1, the Tribunal returned the finding in favor of the appellant. It was held that respondent No. 2 drove the taxi in grossly rash/ negligent manner and caused the accident resulting in grievous injuries to the appellant. Regarding compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000.00 on account of pain and suffering, agony, torture-physical as well as mental, on account of general damages. He awarded Rs. 450.00 towards salary paid to maid servant, Rs. 100.00 was allowed on account of conveyance for visiting hospital, on account of loss of personality and social movements a sum of Rs. 7,000.00. In all a sum of Rs. 14,000.00 was awarded to her.

(5) Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal. None appeared on behalf of respondents to contest the appeal. Mr. Sharda on behalf of the appellant contended that the appellant having suffered a compound fracture on the shaft and right tibia (Right leg) resulting into shortening of leg by 1/4 inch as a result of which she has to limp throughout her whole life. The Tribunal gravely erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 6,000.00 on account of pain and suffering. The Tribunal ignored the fact that had the appellant not suffered injuries, she would have enjoyed the leave for better purpose or otherwise she should have got it encashed as per rules of the service. It was also contended that in view of the fact the appellant had remained confined to bed up to 12th December, 1973 and the departmental examination was held in the end of December 1973, the appellant could hardly concentrate on her studies for preparations on account of physical and mental agony. Had the appellant been not confined to bed, she would have surely qualified the exams because she failed in two papers only by 2 and 6 marks as proved from the record. After qualifying the said examination she would have been promoted as a Welfare Officer and her salary would have been Rs. 1,027.00 per month. There is a loss of Rs. 337.00 per month i.e. difference between the salary drawn by the appellant at the time of the accident and the salary to which she was entitled had she qualified the departmental qualifying examination.

(6) The Tribunal awarded a paltry sum of Rs. 7,000.00 on account of general damages. The appellant was entitled to atleast Rs. 25,000.00 on account of general damages keeping in view the facts that she would have to limp during her remaining life which is definitely a handicap for every one and more particularly for a lady whose physical charm stands reduced besides the inferiority complex to which she is subjected.

(7) I have considered the raised on behalf of the appellant. In my opinion, the amount awarded to the appellant is on the lower side. Taking into consideration the facts that the appellant suffered compound fracture on the shaft and right tibia resulting in shortening of leg by l/4th of an inch and also suffered pains, suffering, agony, torture and was bed-ridden for 3 months and also the fact that she was deprived of taking the departmental qualifying examination which affected her promotion as a Welfare Officer, her loss of personality and social movement, it will be just and reasonable if the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 14,000.00 to Rs. 35,000.00. The appellant we also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on this amount from the data of filing the petition till the realisation.

(8) The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 35,000.00 Along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. Any amount received by the appellant would be adjusted from the amount awarded to the appellant by this Court. The appeal is disposed of.

(9) The appellant is also entitled to cost of this appeal.