Delhi High Court
Rattan Singh Khatri vs The Oriental Insuranc Company ... on 10 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th October, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 965/2005
RATTAN SINGH KHATRI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. ZS. Lohat, Adv. with
Mr. Manoj Lohat, Adv. with
Appellant in person.
versus
THE ORIENTAL INSURANC COMPANY LTD. & ORS. . Respondents
Through Mr. S.K.Ray, Adv. with
Mr. Amitava Poddar, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `20,000/- awarded in
favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 16.02.2003.
2. As per the Appellant's case on 16.02.2003 at about 3:15 P.M. he (the
Appellant) was proceeding to Alipur on his two wheeler No. DL-6SJ-
0875. After examining a cow in village Bhoregarh, Narela, the Appellant
took a turn towards Alipur when he was hit by a speeding Maruti Van
No.DL-3CB-9046 which came from the side of Alipur. It was claimed
that the Maruti Van was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner
and in violation of the traffic rules and regulations. The driver of the
Maruti Van was apprehended at the spot and a criminal case FIR
No.32/3003 was registered in Police Station Narela.
3. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to Babu
Jagjivan Ram Hospital. He was then shifted to Apollo Hospital, Sarita
Vihar where he remained admitted from 16.02.2003 to 03.03.2003. He
had to undertake physiotherapy from Bone Joints Care Foundation of
India. The Appellant suffered comminuted fracture of right femur and
loss of his four teeth. He had to be operated upon in the Apollo Hospital.
The Appellant proved on record duplicate bills from Apollo Hospital
Exs.PW-2/1 to PW-2/21. He further proved bills/receipts regarding
payment of charges towards physiotherapy, purchase of medicines and
purchase of medical equipment (for drainage of pus). Bills/receipts for
purchase of medicines are Ex.PW-4/1-15. Receipts regarding payment of
preparation of crown for the teeth are Annexures A-23 to A-33.
4. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of `20,000/- towards pain
and suffering. It rejected the bills for treatment from Apollo Hospital and
Bone Joints Care Foundation of India on the ground that no explanation
was given for loss of original bills.
5. The finding on negligence having not been challenged by the
Respondents, the same has attained finality.
6. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-
(i) The original bills were misplaced at the time of whitewash. The
duplicate bills were photo-generated with detailed statements of the
bills along with receipts for payment. There was no reason to
disbelieve the same, particularly, in view of proving the discharge
summary Ex.AW-2/1 filed during the pendency of the Appeal.
(ii) The Appellant remained under treatment as an indoor patient for a
period of about 15 days and as an outdoor patient for a period of
four months. He had to travel 45 kms. from his village in Narela
all the way to Apollo Hospital in South Delhi, Sarita Vihar, as also
for the physiotherapy. But, no compensation was awarded towards
conveyance and special diet.
(iii) No compensation was awarded towards Attendant charges and loss
of income.
(iv) The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is very low.
7. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the Respondent
Insurance Company that the Appellant was not referred to Apollo
Hospital by the doctors of Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital. Thus, the
Appellant was not entitled to the reimbursement of the treatment
undergone in Apollo Hospital, which otherwise is of a doubtful nature.
8. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) enjoins payment
of just compensation. In General Manager, Kerala Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC
176, the Supreme Court held as under: -
"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."
9. MLC Ex.PW-7/A was prepared in Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital. At the
time of the Appellant's admission, he was admitted with the history of
RTA (road traffic accident) while going on a two wheeler. He was having
loss of consciousness and was bleeding from nose. There were as many
as six injuries recorded on the MLC which included fracture of femur and
uprooting of the teeth.
10. A perusal of the detailed bills placed on record shows that the Appellant
got himself admitted only in a general ward. He remained admitted in
ICU for two days and then in Semi-Private ward for 11½ days. The
Appellant did not opt for any luxurious accommodation in Apollo
Hospital. Charges for the general ward were `950/- per day whereas
charges for the Semi-private ward were `24,150/- for 11½ days i.e. `
2100/- per day. Rest of the amount of `2,16,784/- was towards various
tests, surgeries and purchase of various articles required for Appellant's
surgery and for his day to day care during his treatment in the hospital.
11. The Appellant examined PW-2 Heman Singh Bisht, Record Clerk from
Apollo Hospital. Of course, the witness had not brought the prescription
made by the hospital but the same was not summoned from him. Nothing
was brought out in cross-examination of this witness to suspect the
genuineness or veracity of these bills issued by Apollo Hospital, which is
a very prestigious hospital. The Claims Tribunal was totally oblivious to
the plight of a victim of a motor vehicle accident and without any
justifiable reason rejected the bills and the receipts which were computer
generated documents by an institution like Apollo Hospital.
12. As stated above, the Appellant received treatment in general/semi-private
ward. The tortfeasor cannot be permitted to take up the plea that a victim
can receive treatment from a private hospital only when he is referred to
the same by a Govt. hospital.
13. During the pendency of the Appeal, an application for additional
evidence was allowed. The Appellant examined himself as AW-1 and
Shekhar Dogra, Medical Record Technician, in Apollo Hospital as AW-2.
The Appellant's discharge summary was proved as Ex.AW-2/1. The
portion of the discharge summary is extracted hereunder:-
"Patient presented with history of RTA with Maruti Van at around
3.30 PM on 16/02/2003 at Narela, while riding on a bike, with
injury to head & right hip. Patient had Complaints of pain,
swelling, deformity right hip and right femur and injury to head.
Complains of head injury. History of unconsciousness present - 15
minutes. No history of ENT bleeding/convulsions. No history of
chest / abdomen injury.
....
COURSE IN THE HOSPITAL
Patient was admitted for further management. Investigations done
showed right trochanteric fracture. He underwent ORIF with long
plate DHS and bone grafting on 18/02/03. Patient stood the
procedure well. Blood transfusion were given as and when
required. During hospital stay he had faecal impaction Dr. Sushil
Kumar Jain had seen him and done the manual evacuation. Patient
was also seen by Dr. Neeraj Verma (Dental Surgeon). Patient is
doing well and being discharged on following advice............."
14. The medical bills are amply proved. In the absence of any suggestion or
any investigation that the Appellant claimed its reimbursement from any
other source, there is no reason to deny the same.
15. The Appellant is, therefore, entitled to a sum of `2,16,784/- towards
expenditure in Apollo Hospital. `60,000/- as expenditure on
physiotherapy in Bone Joints Care Foundation of India and a sum of
`33,240/- towards purchase of medicines, etc. bills whereof have been
duly proved on record.
16. It is amply proved that the Appellant remained an indoor patient in
Apollo Hospital for about 15 days and was an outdoor patient and
received physiotherapy for about three months. The compensation of
`20,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering was totally inadequate. I
enhance the same to `50,000/-.
17. Considering the nature of injuries, the Appellant needed an Attendant for
a period of at least four months. I award him a sum of `10,000/- @
`2,500/- per month as Attendant charges.
18. The Appellant retired as a Veterinary Assistant. He used to attend to the
animals after his retirement. I would assess his income to be about
`4,000/- per month and would hold that he was unable to attend to his
work for about six months. Thus, he is granted compensation of
`24,000/- for loss of income. I would further make a provision of
`20,000/- each towards conveyance and special diet.
19. The compensation awarded is re-computed as under:-
Sl.No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by
this Court
1. Expenditure on Treatment `2,16,784/-
2. Physiotherapy ` 60,000/-
3. Purchase of Medicines ` 33,240/-
4. Pain and Suffering ` 50,000/-
5. Attendant Charges ` 10,000/-
6. Loss of Income ` 24,000/-
7. Conveyance ` 20,000/-
8. Special Diet ` 20,000/-
Total ` 4,34,024/-
20. The compensation is thus enhanced from `20,000/- to ` 4,34,024/-.
21. The enhanced compensation of `4,14,024/- shall carry interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit.
22. Respondent No.1 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with the UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within six weeks.
23. Since major amount is awarded towards reimbursement on the
expenditure incurred by him for his treatment and this accident took place
almost 10 years ago, the entire compensation along with interest shall be
released on deposit.
24. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
25. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 10, 2012
vk
