Bindabai W/o Sohan Kewat vs M/s Unique Construction Corp. & Anr.

. Heard.

By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 22.08.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No.171/2002.

The appellant, who is the original claimant, filed injury claim before the Claims Tribunal and thereby sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment has awarded Rs.31,000/- inclusive of ‘no-fault liability’. As such, only Rs.6000/- has been awarded towards the injury claim and, therefore, the appellant seeks enhancement in the compensation by filing the present appeal.

In the present matter, it is established before the Tribunal that on 20.12.2001, the offending vehicle gave a dash to the appellant from behind, resulting to which, the appellant has received grievous injury, which resulted into permanent disability. The offence is duly registered in the matter at Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur vide Crime No.568/2001 dated 20.12.2001.

It is pertinent to note that in the present matter, there is no cross-objection nor cross-appeal to state that the accident was never occurred or appellant was not injured and, therefore, she is not entitled for a single penny in the matter. As such, only issue involved in the present appeal, as to whether, appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.

In the present appeal, to decide the issue of enhancement, I have perused the record. The record shows that the appellant in support of her injury claim has placed on record the police case papers which are marked as Exhibits 28 and 29. The policy of the offending vehicle Exhibits 30 and 31. The appellant also placed on record the discharge card received from Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. The said discharge card shows the appellant was hospitalized from 20.12.2001 to 25.01.2001. The discharge card also shows that she was given various treatment during her hospitalization of one month. The appellant also placed on record the medical bills of the some period which were available with her and placed on record the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer namely Dr. A.K. Lavange showing thereby that due to head injury and leg injury caused to her, she has sustained 15% permanent disability.

On the basis of this document, appellant stepped into the witness box and reiterated her submission and thereby stated that she is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. This witness was cross-examined by the respondents. In the cross-examination, it is established that she was working as a Cook and while she was going for her work, the accident occurred. It is also established in the cross-examination that the appellant could not do the work for a complete month. Hence, from the cross-examination itself, it is clear that due to the accident, she was hospitalized and under the treatment for a period of one month.

The respondent Insurance Company has strongly opposed the present appeal. According to the respondent, appellant failed to establish on record the percentage of disability caused to her. The appellant failed to examine Dr. A.K. Lawange, who has issued her disability certificate dated 01.07.2004 and also failed to establish that she was hospitalized and taken medical treatment during that period. According to the respondents, she was having an annual income of Rs.24,000/- and thereby, learned Tribunal considering the calculation as per the settled principles of law has awarded just and fair compensation in the matter. Hence, there is no need of any interference of this Court in the matter.

In light of the submission made before me, it is clear that appellant was a Cook. In the accident, the offending vehicle has given her dash from the backside. As such, appellant was not any way responsible for the accident. This fact is established from the document available on record and evidence which the appellant has placed on record. Therefore, prima facie, in the present case, accident is proved beyond doubt.

In this regard, it will be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prabhavathi and Ors. Vs. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation reported in MANU/SC/0295/2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court by relying upon the judgment in case of Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC MANU/SC/0204/2019 and Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/1595/2022 has held that the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, while dealing with the compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be awarded just and fair compensation. While doing so, the Tribunal would not be strongly bound by the pleadings of the parties. While deciding the cases arising out of the motor vehicles accident, the standard of proof to be borne in mind, must be preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.

So also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others (2018) 5 SCC 656, has again held that the Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; its function being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the event and accident has taken place by a reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle. The Tribunal has to take a holistic view of the matter. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be applied. The approach to Tribunal should be holistic analysis of the entire pleading and evidence by applying the principles of preponderance of probabilities.

In the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately considered as to how the damages is to be assessed in the case of permanent disability or injuries caused to the injured in the accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has held that while assessing the permanent disability, it is necessary to consider whether such injury caused functional disability of the body or not and whether such injury has affected the work or the employment of the injured person and to assess the loss caused to her in the accident.

In light of this legal position, I have verified the entire submission made by the parties in the matter. In my view, in such circumstances, if the accident was caused, admittedly, the appellant was injured. It is nowhere case that after the injury was caused, she has not taken the medical treatment in the matter. In support of this submission, discharged card and medicine bills are placed on record. Therefore, prima facie, it is clear that the appellant was hospitalized in the matter and was under treatment. Therefore, the compensation towards the hospitalization, medical treatment and medical bills, appellant is entitled for the same.

In the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Others,, reported in (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 413, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that amongst the people, who are not government employees and belongs to the poorer strata of society, bills are not retained. So also, they normally did not take care to have their name on the medical bills and also not maintained its record properly. Hence, the amount towards the medical bills cannot be limited only to the extent of the bills which they are produced. The Court should be liberal while considering the medical bills of the injured and particularly of the person who belongs to poorer strata of the society.

It will be pertinent to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Muralidhar Vs. R. Subbalakshmi and ors. reported in MANU/SC/1238/2024, whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of pain and suffering has held that while considering this aspect, the injury suffered to the claimant, is difficult to be compensated exactly in amount. However, for that purpose, each case is required to be dealt with on the basis of its facts and circumstances. Ordinarily, pain and suffering means physical discomfort and distress and include mental and emotional drama for which damages can be recovered in an accident claim. Hence, considering the facts of the present case, wherein the appellant was working as a Cook, who had suffered head injury and her right leg was damaged, in my opinion, as per the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme appellant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

In light of the above, I am of the opinion that admittedly, the accident was occurred in the matter, the appellant was hospitalized for a period of one month. The discharge card placed on record shows that she was given treatment for a period of one month, therefore, she is entitled for the expenditure towards medical bills and loss of earnings during the treatment. She is also entitled for the compensation towards hospitalization, medical treatment, loss of earning capacity during the treatment and pain and suffering. In my opinion, the following would be just and fair compensation to the appellant in the matter:

In view of above, present appeal needs interference of this Court in the matter. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:

The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.