Delhi High Court
Ranjana Khurana vs Mahender Singh & Ors. on 16 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16th August, 2012
+ FAO. No.527/2003
RANJANA KHURANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with
Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv.
Versus
MAHENDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,60,000/- awarded
in favour of the Appellant Ranjana Khurana for having suffered injuries
in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 24.08.1990.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the Insurer, driver and the owner, the
finding on negligence has attained finality between the parties.
3. Apart from head injury, the Appellant suffered fracture of left hand, right
knee, hip bone and thigh bone. She also suffered injuries on her left hand
and got some stitches. Initially, she was removed to Jasaa Ram Hospital
where she remained admitted for two days. She was then removed to Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital where she regained consciousness after 15 days.
4. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `1,60,000/- which is
tabulated hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by
the Claims
No. Tribunal
1. For Pain and Suffering `50,000/-
2. For Expenses on treatment done and to be done ` 80,000/-
3. For expenses on Conveyance ` 15,000/-
4. Expenses incurred on employing Maid Servant ` 15,000/-
Total ` 1,60,000/-
5. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-
(i) Full compensation has not been awarded towards expenditure
incurred on the medical treatment.
(ii) No separate compensation was awarded for future treatment.
(iii) Compensation awarded towards engaging an attendant is on the
lower side.
(iv) The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the
lower side.
(v) No compensation was awarded towards loss of income.
6. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) provides for
payment of just and fair compensation. In General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.)
and Ors, (1994) 2 SCC 176, the Supreme Court observed that the
determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society
"would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold
up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has
done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since
the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales. At the
same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be
the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of
providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), to the extent possible,
in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident
and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them.
Relevant para of the report is extracted hereunder:-
"5......The determination of the quantum must answer what
contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would
allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours
and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The
amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life
and limb in a free society in generous scales'. All this means that
the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal
standards."
7. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `80,000/- as expenditure on
medical treatment already received and to be received in future. The bills
in respect of the treatment already received were totalled up by the
learned counsel for the parties (during hearing) which itself comes to
`81,038/-. Some of the small bills might not have been preserved. In the
circumstances, I would award a sum of `85,000/- towards expenditure on
treatment.
8. The Appellant placed on record a certificate dated 11.10.1993
(Ex.PW2/18) issued by Dr. Amer Saxena. It goes to show that the
Appellant had to receive long term treatment to prevent convulsion(fits).
The Appellant was under treatment of Dr. Rajesh Acharya since
21.03.1997. He deposed that the Appellant's treatment would continue
for one or two years. If after two years the fits get controlled, then the
medicines could be stopped. He deposed that the Appellant shall have to
undergo CAT Scan and EEG examination. In the circumstances, the
Appellant is entitled to a compensation towards future treatment also. In
the absence of any specific evidence, I make a guess work and award a
compensation of `25,000/-.
9. The Appellant deposed that she used to give tuitions to the children of
primary classes. She would earn `2,500/- to `3,000/- per month from
tuitions. The details of the children and parents were not given. No
parents were examined to prove this fact. In the circumstances, it would
be difficult to believe that the Appellant was taking tuitions.
10. She deposed that she had employed one maid servant named Shyamoli
Dey. PW7 Inder Khurana, the Appellant's husband deposed that the
Appellant cannot sit properly on the floor, she cannot walk fast and she
cannot run. He testified that they have engaged a maid servant to look
after the household work and his wife. He deposed that he paid `600/-
per month to the maid servant, which was later on increased to `800/-
per month. No expert evidence was produced by the Appellant that she
cannot carry out normal day to day household work after recovering
from the injuries. Admittedly, the Appellant did not suffer any
permanent disability. As stated above, no expert evidence was produced
to prove that the Appellant cannot carry out day to day household work
after recovering from the injuries. Considering that apart from the
fracture of left hand, right knee, hip bone and thigh bone, the Appellant
suffered head injuries. I would increase the expenses for employing a
maid servant from `15,000/- to `30,000/-. This accident took place in
the year 1990. Award of compensation of `50,000/- towards pain and
suffering considering the nature of injuries and the year of accident is
just and reasonable.
11. Thus, the compensation is enhanced by `45,000/- which shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Petition till
its payment.
12. The enhanced compensation of `45,000/- shall be deposited in the name
of the Appellant in the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and shall
be released on deposit.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 16, 2012
vk/pst
