Delhi High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Sultana And Anr. on 20 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008 ACJ 121
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. These two appeals being M.A.C. Appeal Nos. 398 and 379 of 2006 arise out of the same accident which took place on 3.9.2002.
2. Sultana, aged 36 years, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stating that she suffered serious injuries when the bus bearing No. UP 15-K 2292 in which she was traveling met with an accident. The said bus was owned by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.
3. defense taken by the U.P.S.R.T.C. before the Tribunal was that the said road accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. It also denied that Sultana was traveling in the bus.
4. After considering the evidence on record pertaining to the accident, learned Tribunal held that U.P.S.R.T.C. failed to establish that Sultana was not traveling in the said bus at the time of accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,57,946.
5. In M.A.C. Appeal No. 398 of 2006, U.P.S.R.T.C. has challenged the award pertaining to the finding of the Tribunal that Sultana was traveling in the bus and sustained injuries when the bus met with the said accident. Issue of rash driving of the bus has not been urged.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the fact that Sultana did not produce any ticket shows that she was not traveling in the bus and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding otherwise.
7. I am afraid, the mere fact that Sultana was not able to produce the ticket does not lead to an inference that she was not traveling in the bus when the accident in question took place. The attendant circumstances are also to be considered.
8. Evidence on record establishes that Sultana sustained serious injuries when the accident in question took place. She suffered multiple injuries inasmuch as her spinal cord and neck bone were fractured. She became unconscious after the accident as she suffered serious injuries. She was not the only injured, there were others as well. One had died.
9. Due to the fact that she sustained serious injuries in the accident, it cannot be expected that she would have taken due care to preserve the ticket.
10. At this juncture, I note the testimony of Sultana, who was examined as PW 1. She has been subjected to the cross-examination. Her cross-examination shows that no suggestion was given to her that she was not traveling in the bus when the accident in question took place.
11. I also note the testimony of the driver, Phool Kumar, who was examined as RW 1. He has deposed that when the accident in question took place, he took the injured to the Government Hospital where they were given first-aid and treatment. He did not state that the appellant was not traveling in the bus.
12. Evidence on the record thus clearly establishes that Sultana was traveling in the said bus at the time of the accident.
13. M.A.C. Appeal No. 398 of 2006 is accordingly dismissed.
14. M.A.C. Appeal No. 379 of 2006 has been filed by Sultana seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to her by the learned Tribunal.
15. Vide award dated 23.11.2005, the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,57,946. Break-up of the compensation is as follows:
(a) Pain and agony Rs. 15,000
(b) Actual medical expenses Rs. 25,946
(c) Loss of income for 110 days Rs. 12,000
(d) Special diet, conveyance, etc. Rs. 5,000
(e) Towards permanent disability including
loss of amenities in life Rs. 1,00,000
---------------
Total Rs. 1,57,946
---------------
16. Evidence on record establishes that Sultana sustained multiple injuries in the said road accident. Her spinal cord and collar bones were fractured. Her right side ribs were also fractured. She had undergone treatment for 110 days. Disability certificate issued by Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital shows that she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60 per cent.
17. Sultana is present in the court today. She is not able to move her head. She is unable to lift her arms. She is also not able to walk properly. Thus, it can be said that she has become immobile and is unable to perform any work.
18. Considering the extent of injuries sustained by her as also the fact that she suffered a permanent disability of 60 per cent, compensation of Rs. 1,57,946 awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.
19. As appellant Sultana is unable to perform any work on account of injuries sustained by her in the said road accident, learned Tribunal ought to have awarded her compensation on account of loss of future income as she stated that she was stitching clothes in the house. If not that, her notional contribution to the household as a housewife had to be compensated.
20. Appellant Sultana had submitted before the Claims Tribunal that she was doing stitching work before the accident. In absence of any evidence that she was engaged in stitching work, learned Tribunal proceeded to determine her monthly income on the basis of minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act.
21. The minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker as on 1.8.2002 were Rs. 2,680 per month. Her physical condition after the accident makes it impossible for her to perform any work and earn an income. Therefore, she needs to be recompensed for loss of future income.
22. Even otherwise, assuming that she was a housewife, seeing her condition, it is apparent that she cannot do any household work. Rather, she needs constant care.
23. In the decision recorded as Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar , Apex Court has held that while determining compensation to housewives aged between 34 years and 59 years, their notional income should be taken as Rs. 3,000 per month. Therefore, her notional income of Rs. 3,000 per month as per Lata Wadhwa 's case (supra) needs to be compensated.
24. Thus, under either circumstance, Rs. 1,50,000 would be the loss she suffers. Accordingly, I award Rs. 1,50,000 to the appellant Sultana, under the head 'loss of future income'.
25. Noting the gravity of injuries sustained by the appellant, compensation of Rs. 15,000 awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'pain and agony' is on the lower side.
26. I award Rs. 50,000 under the head I 'pain and agony'. Thus, the compensation under the head 'pain and agony' is increased by a further sum of Rs. 35,000. The net effect is that compensation stands enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,85,000.
27. M.A.C. Appeal No. 379 of 2006 stands disposed of enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs. 1,85,000. Enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
28. M.A.C. Appeal No. 398 of 2006 is dismissed.
29. M.A.C. Appeal No. 379 of 2006 is allowed in terms of para 27 above.
No costs.
