Delhi High Court
Om Parkash vs Satvir Singh & Ors. on 4 June, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ F.A.O. No.166 of 1994
% 04.06.2010
OM PARKASH ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.N. Talwar, Advocate.
Versus
SATVIR SINGH & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate.
Reserved on: 20th May, 2010
Pronounced on: 4th June, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this appeal, the appellant has assailed award dated 14th January, 1994 whereby
the appellant was granted compensation of only Rs.5,000/- by the Tribunal.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the appellant
met with an accident on 6th October, 1983. The appellant was on his motorcycle bearing
No.DEV 8361 and the offending vehicle was a Haryana Roadways bus bearing No.HRU
882 being driven by respondent No.1. As a result of this accident, the appellant received
head injuries and became unconscious on the spot itself. He started bleeding from nose
and ears. He was removed to Moolchand Hospital wherefrom after initial treatment; he
was removed to AIIMS Hospital. The appellant testified before the Tribunal that he was
discharged from AIIMS on 16th October, 1983. He proved MLC showing extent of
external injuries and the accident having taken place on 6th October, 1983 at 2 p.m. The
MLC prepared at Moolchand showed that he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital.
However, PW-3 testified that he was admitted to AIIMS Hospital. PW-3 also placed on
record MLC of the petitioner prepared at AIIMS Hospital. The learned Tribunal observed
that the two MLCs did not tally with each other since in the MLC of AIIMS, the arrival
time was given as 3:25 p.m. on 6th October, 1983 but nothing was stated that an MLC was
also prepared at Moolchand Hospital. The Tribunal also observed that column regarding
date of admission and date of discharge were lying blank and, therefore, the Tribunal
refused to consider the MLC Exhibit PW 3/A on the ground that it did not support the
contention of the appellant that he was discharged from AIIMS on 16th October, 1983.
The Tribunal considered that the only fact established on record was that the appellant
was taken to Moolchand Hospital after the accident with a history of unconsciousness,
bleeding from nose and ears and then he was removed to AIIMS Hospital. No fracture of
his skull or chest was seen although x-rays were done and no record regarding treatment
of the injured was available. Therefore, the Tribunal did not grant any compensation to
the injured either in respect of the amount spent on treatment, medicines or on
conveyance, special diet, etc. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and
sufferings and that is why, the appellant is aggrieved.
3. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of negligence had observed that the
accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HRU 882 driven by
respondent No.1. The Tribunal had noted down the severance of the accident and the
injuries received by the injured. The very fact that after initial admission of the injured in
Moolchand Hospital, he was referred for treatment to AIIMS Hospital or to Safdarjung
Hospital shows that the treatment to be given to the injured was not of the nature of first
aid type. Had it been of the first aid type, Moolchand Hospital would have discharged the
injured instead of sending him to AIIMS Hospital. The injured was still unconscious
when he was removed to AIIMS Hospital. There seems to be some confusion about date
of discharge but that could not have made the Tribunal to disbelieve the testimony of
injured that he remained admitted in hospital from 6th October, 1983 to 16th October,
1983. It was not such a period for which the admission of the injured in the hospital was
not probable looking at the fact that he had received head injuries and some internal
injuries, resulting into bleeding from nose and ears. It would have been normal for a
hospital to keep him under observation because of internal injuries and head injuries. The
further record produced by the injured shows that the injured had to undergo intensive
physiotherapy and remained as an outdoor patient of AIIMS Hospital for considerable
long time. All these factors were ignored by the Tribunal on the ground of disparity
between the record of AIIMS Hospital and Moolchand Hospital and disparity between the
testimony of record clerk and the record.
4. It is settled law that the Tribunal is not a civil court and has not to follow strict
procedure of Evidence Act and CPC in order to hold an inquiry about the compensation
to be awarded to the injured. The Tribunal could have relied upon the testimony of the
injured if the Tribunal found that the testimony of the injured was creditworthy and
supported by the circumstances. Insistence of the Tribunal on documentary evidence was
not called for. The record produced before the Tribunal in the form of copies of MLC
and in the form of subsequent OPD visits could not be said to be forged in view of the
fact that the record was produced partly by clerk of AIIMS Hospital and partly by the
appellant himself. The Tribunal should have given due credence to this record in order to
arrive at just and fair compensation. I consider the Tribunal in this case did not consider
the matter in proper perspective and did not take into account the different circumstances
brought before it for grant of compensation.
5. The appellant in this case remained admitted in hospital for about 10 days during
which period he was under treatment of doctors of AIIMS Hospital. Even after his
discharge from the hospital, he was advised intensive physiotherapy which continued for
long period. It may be that the appellant fully recovered from the accident as far as his
memory and other faculties were concerned but he did remain incapacitated for sufficient
time soon after the accident. I, therefore, consider that he was entitled for damages of
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income for the period when he remained confined to hospital
and thereafter when he was not capable of resuming his duties. He was also entitled for
expenses incurred on physiotherapist and for his conveyance for repeated visits to AIIMS
Hospital and for special diet, etc. I award as sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards diet and
conveyance and Rs.10,000/- towards charges of physiotherapist. I also consider that
amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the injured towards pains and sufferings
was awarded on the assumption that he had not remained admitted in hospital for any
point of time and on the ground that he became unconscious and suffered some internal
bleeding due to the accident. However, the pains and sufferings of the appellant had been
prolonged since not only he remained admitted in hospital for ten days, but also because
he had to undergo treatment even after his discharge for quite long time and remained as
an OPD patient of AIIMS Hospital. I, therefore, consider that towards pains and
sufferings, an amount of Rs.10,000/- would be just and proper. Since it is well-known
that in AIIMS Hospital though treatment is done but every patient has to spend some
amount on medicines, etc. I award Rs.5,000/- towards medicines.
6. I, therefore, allow this appeal to the above extent. The award of the Tribunal is
modified and the appellant is granted compensation as under:-
i) Loss of income - Rs.10,000/-
ii) Expenses on special diet - Rs.5,000/-
iii) Expenses on conveyance - Rs.5,000/-
iv) Charges of physiotherapist - Rs.10,000/-
v) Towards pains & Sufferings - Rs.10,000/-
vi) Expenses towards medicines - Rs.5,000/-
___________________
Total compensation - Rs.45,000/-
___________________
7. The appellant would be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation @ 7 per
cent per annum from the date of award of the Tribunal till realization.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
[JUDGE]
JUNE 04, 2010
'AA'
