Delhi High Court
Prashant Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation & ... on 18 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th October, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 774/2010
PRASHANT KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with
Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. S.K. Ray, Adv with
Mr. Amitava Poddar, 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 `40,000/- awarded in
favour of the Appellant Prashant Kumar who suffered injuries in a motor
vehicle accident which occurred on 08.07.2008.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner and the insurer, the
finding on negligence has attained finality.
3. On the fateful day, the Appellant was in the process of boarding bus
No.DL-1PB-3078. The driver suddenly started the bus as a result of
which the Appellant suffered injuries on his left arm and pelvis. He was
immediately removed to Maharishi Balmiki Hospital and thereafter
shifted to St. Stephens Hospital. The Claims Tribunal awarded the
compensation of `40,000/- which is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl.No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by
the Claims
Tribunal
1. Medical Expenses `5,000/-
2. Special Diet / Conveyance ` 5,000/-
3. Pain & Suffering ` 30,000/-
Total ` 40,000/-
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that PW-1 Balraj
Dhara, father of the Appellant spent a sum of ` 1,00,000/- on Appellant's
treatment, whereas a sum of just `5,000/- was awarded towards medical
treatment. The compensation of `5,000/- awarded towards special diet
and conveyance and `30,000/- towards pain and suffering is grossly on
the lower side. No compensation was awarded towards loss of income to
the Appellant.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance
Company argues that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
6. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) enjoins 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."
MEDICAL EXPENDITURE
7. As stated above, Balraj Dhara PW-1 the Appellant's father has claimed
that a sum of `1,00,000/- was spent on Appellant's treatment. A bill
Ex.PW-1/3 and various receipts were proved. The Claims Tribunal
declined to award compensation in respect of medical treatment received
in St. Stephens Hospital primarily on the ground that on the bill Ex.PW-
1/3 the name of the company was mentioned as Delhi Jal Board. The
Appellant moved an application for additional evidence to prove that no
reimbursement was made by Delhi Jal Board.
8. Appellant examined Balwant Singh, Chief Water Analysis of Appellant's
father's employer (DJB). He deposed that Balraj Dhara who was working
as a Filter Supervisor did not receive any payment in respect of the
treatment of his son. He also produced the certificate dated 21.03.2012 in
this regard. I have before me the Trial Court record. Although, the bill is
in the name of Prashant Kumar, son of Balraj Dhara, but at the bottom it
is mentioned "Company name Delhi Jal Board". The receipts for
`43,833/- were issued in the name of Prashant Kumar. Thus, it was
evident that the payment had not been made by Delhi Jal Board but only
by the Appellant's father. If the Claims Tribunal had any doubt about
reimbursement of this amount by the Appellant's father, it could have
asked the Appellant to produce the witness from DJB to depose in this
regard. Moreover, the original receipts were filed with the Claims
Tribunal. Without the original receipts any Govt. Department would not
make any payment to an employee. In any case, it is established that a
sum of `43,838/- was paid to the hospital towards treatment as an indoor
patient. Some small receipts for further treatment have been produced.
Although, there is no evidence with regard to the expenditure of
`1,00,000/- as claimed by the Appellant's father, considering the nature
of injuries and duration of the treatment, it would be reasonable to hold
that the Appellant/Appellant's father himself has spent a sum of
`60,000/- on his treatment. I accordingly award him a sum of `60,000/-
towards expenditure on treatment.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
9. The Appellant suffered fracture of both bones left forearm for which
surgery was performed in St. Stephens Hospital on 17.07.2008. The
Appellant also suffered fracture of sacrum, which as per the discharge
summary was managed conservatively. The Appellant remained admitted
in the St. Stephens Hospital from 08.07.2008 to 25.07.2008, i.e. for a
period of 17 days and remained as an outdoor patient for quite some time.
The fracture must have taken at least three months to heal.
10. It is difficult to measure in terms of money the pain and suffering which
is suffered by the claimant on account of serious injuries caused to him in
a motor accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain
and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which
may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent
by the victim of a motor accident. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal
and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the parts of the
body where the injuries were sustained; surgeries (if any) underwent by
the victim; confinement in the hospital and the duration of the treatment.
11. The compensation of `30,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is on
the lower side; the same is enhanced to `50,000/-.
LOSS OF INCOME
12. The Appellant entered the witness box as PW-2 and testified that he was
a student of 12th standard and was giving tuitions to school children and
was earning `4,000/- per month. He stated that he could not work for six
months. The Appellant's testimony in this regard was not challenged in
cross-examination. I would, therefore, assume that the Appellant was
earning `4,000/- per month by tuition. I have already held that it must
have taken at least three months to heal the fracture. The Appellant is,
therefore, entitled to a sum of `12,000/- towards loss of income for three
months.
SPECIAL DIET & CONVEYANCE
13. The Claims Tribunal awarded a lumpsum compensation of `5,000/-
towards special diet and conveyance. As stated earlier, the Appellant
remained admitted for 17 days. He is a resident of Village Barwala
which is at quite a distance from St. Stephens Hospital. His attendants
must have been visiting him all the way from Barwala. Similarly,
considering the nature of injuries, the Appellant would have needed
special diet for two-three months. The lumpsum compensation of
`5,000/- under this head was wholly inadequate, the same is raised to
`10,000/- each for special diet and conveyance.
14. The compensation awarded is re-computed as under:-
Compensation under various Awarded by Awarded by
Sl.No. heads the Claims this Court
Tribunal
1. Medical Expenses `5,000/- `60,000/-
2. Special Diet ` 5,000/- ` 10,000/-
Conveyance ` 10,000/-
3. Pain & Suffering ` 30,000/- ` 50,000/-
4. Loss of Income -- ` 12,000/-
Total ` 40,000/- ` 1,42,000/-
15. Thus, there is an overall enhancement of `1,02,000/- which shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its
payment.
16. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with the Claims
Tribunal within six weeks which shall be released to the Appellant on
deposit.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
18. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 18, 2012
vk
