Arun vs Balvinder Singh and Others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.—Both these Misc. Appeals are proposed to be decided by common judgment as they arise out of the same accident in separate Award dated 5.11.1999 in Claim Case Nos. 1/1997 and 2/1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khachrod (Ujjain).

Accident took place on 2nd July, 1996 at 3.00 p.m. on Padlyakala Nagda Mahidpur road near Mahidpur barriers, Police Station Nagda (Ujjain) when matador bearing registration No. MP 13-E/0484, collided with scooter owned by respondent No. 4 Rajendra Kumar Sharma insured with respondent No. 5 United India Insurance Company Ltd. The Matador was insured with respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company Ltd. In this accident, Bhawani Singh (20) died while Arun s/o Mahavir Prasad Sharma, suffered injuries. The allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Matador, otherwise it would not have happened.

Consequently, Arun Sharma has claimed compensation of Rs. 4,30,000/-while claimants (father and mother) have claimed compensation of Rs. 29,10,000/- for the death of Bhawani Singh. Claims Tribunal framed issues in the case, recorded evidence and decided both claims by impugned awards. Finding of Claims Tribunal is that accident took place, as alleged in which Arun Sharma suffered injuries while Bhawani Singh died. Accordingly, ccompensation of Rs. 60,000/- has been awarded to Arun Sharma and Rs. 1,68,000/- to parents of Bhawani Singh. Against these awards National Insurance Company filed Misc. Appeal No. 403/2000, arising out of Claim Case No. 2/1997 which has been dismissed on 15.7.2002. Another Misc. Appeal No. 415/2000 arising out of Claim Case No. 1/97, has been dismissed for default. Therefore, present appeals for consideration.

There is no dispute about taking place of the accident, on the basis of evidence recorded in the case, offending vehicle being matador No. MP/13-E/ 0484 owned by Balbinder Singh, respondent No. 1, insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. After coming this conclusion, we consider the question whether just compensation has been awarded to claimants in these cases. For doing so, we discuss the cases individually one after other:

Misc. Appeal No. 513/2000 Arun v. Balbinder and Ors.

Arun suffered personal injuries in this accident. He alleges that in the accident, he suffered multiple fracture on his right thigh and right shoulder, apart from injury to head. At the time of accident, he was 23 year old. He was engaged with contractor earning Rs. 2500/- per month by way of salary and was carrying on tuition of students for X and XI Classes in three batches. Each batch comprises 7-8 students, thereby earned Rs. 100/- per student. As a result of this accident, he lost his job with the contractor and could not carry on tuition work as well. His leg has been shortened by 1", making him difficult to move freely and suffered stigma in marriage. During treatment in various hospitals, he had to undergo great pain and sufferings, expenses on special diet, medicine and transport. In support of his claim, Dr. Rajesh Dashore (P.W. 4) has been produced in witness box, who stated about injuries suffered by claimant including the one on head.

Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Advocate for respondent National Insurance Company, submits that there is no definite evidence in respect of the income of claimant by the job with the contractor and from the students, whose tuition, he has stated to have carried on. In the later case, student Shailendra Shrivastava (P.W. 3) states that he was one of the students of claimant, who had 3-4 students for tuition.

With regard to medical treatment, submission is that there are no supporting documents with medical prescription, nor they are produced to state that medicines purchased by the claimant, were prescribed. The defence of Insurance Company with regard to driver not possessing valid driving licence stands rejected by this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 403/2000 National Insurance Co. v. Arun and Ors.

Giving consideration to the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we proceed to deal with the question of compensation payable in this case. Injuries have been described by Dr. Rajesh Dashore (P.W. 4) being of serious nature. Claimant moved from hospital to hospital for his treatment, which could not be effective in 13 days. There is evidence to demonstrate that fracture could not join. There is also evidence to support that fracture could not join properly, which may be the reason for shortening of leg by 1 inch. The result would be that claimant may suffer limb broken stigma for later life and may not be in a position to marry according to his choice. Exhs. P/12 to P/85 show that claimant had to spend substantial amount by way of payments to hospitals and for medicines. The bills have been supported by medicines prescriptions and proved. We find that all cash memos pertain to July, 1996 running one after other read with main bills of two hospitals, i.e. Jansewak Trusk Hospital, Birla Gram, Nagda and Choithram Hospital, Indore: reputed hospitals of these places. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting Exhs. P/12 to P/85 and award Rs. 48,000/- for treatment. Claimant must have spent amount of Rs. 2,000/- on transport. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- for Transport, which we maintain in absence of evidence for higher expenditure under this head. Similarly, we maintain Rs. 2,000/- for special diet and Rs. 21,000/- for attendant. So far as pain and sufferings are concerned, we are of the opinion that claimant must have undergone immense pain and sufferings during treatment. Of course, it cannot be compensated but it would be just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on this count. Claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 25 percent with shortening of leg by one inch, therefore, he is awarded Rs. 50,000/- on this account. Claimant suffered loss of tuition of one academic session. Therefore, assuming that there are 7-8 students, in one Session, he must have lost Rs. 20,000/- on this count. We accept loss of salary of Rs. 2500/- per month as stated by the contractor. The question is for how much period claimant should be compensated for this loss? It cannot be said that he would remain without service for all the time after accident. It is, therefore, assumed that he would not be in a position to get another service for one year, we, therefore, award compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. Thus this, appeal is allowed and Award is modified in the terms as above-awarding compensation of Rs. 1,78,000/- in toto, together with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum on enhanced compensation from the date of application payable by National Insurance Company.

Misc. Appeal No. 514/2000 Datar Singh v. Balvinder Singh

Claimants are parents of deceased Bhawani Singh, who was 20 years old at the time of accident. Claimants submit that he was engaged with the contractor and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, out of which, he was paying Rs. 2,000/-per month to the claimants. Datar Singh has produced salary certificate from the Contractor (Exh. P/13).

Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Advocate for National Insurance Company submits that certificate has not been proved by the contractor, therefore, much reliace cannot be placed on this document, He urged that at most deceased would be daily wager earning Rs. 1500/- per month, therefore, compensation be assessed accordingly.

Miss. Seem Sharma, Advocate for appellant submits that claimants have specifically stated that they were being given Rs. 2,000/- per month by the deceased, therefore, deceased was earning much more than this. As such, statement of Datar Singh, on the basis of service with Contractor that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month can be ascertained. Looking to the nature of evidence, we fix income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month after deducting Rs. 1,000/- towards his personal expenses and applying multiplier of Sixteen, compensation comes to Rs. 2,50,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate, Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, taking total compensation to Rs. 2,70,500/-. Enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of application, payable by National Insurance Company.

Mr. Anil Goyal, Advocate for Oriental Insurance Company vehemently contends that Oriental Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation since evidence clearly points out that offending vehicle is Matador No. MP/13-E/0484 and not the scooter insured with it. Contention is accepted.

Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. Awards of the Claims Tribunal are modified as indicated above.

Copy of this judgment be placed in Misc. Appeal No. 514/00.