Deepak Agnihotri vs Jai Bhan and Another

V.K. Bali, J.—By this order, I propose to dispose of six connected appeals bearing Nos. 536 and 538 and 919 to 921 of 1993 as all these appeals arise from one accident in which Deepak Agnihotri, an advocate of this Court, his wife Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri and his cousin Manoj Kumar sustained multiple injuries. Whereas, appeal Nos. 919, 920 and 921 have been filed by the injured-claimants so as to enhance the compensation from the one determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ''MACT''), appeals bearing Nos. 536, 537 and 538 have been filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation, with an obvious prayer to slash down the compensation that has since already been granted to the claimants.

Brief facts of the case reveal that Deepak Agnihotri, an advocate practising in the Punjab & Haryana High court, his wife Urvashi Agnihotri and his cousin Manoj Kumar met with an accident when the car bearing Registration No. DL-1C-8190 which was driven by Deepak Agnihotri collided with a bus of Delhi Transport Corporation bearing registration Nos. DL1P-9033. This accident took place on April 26, 1992 near Indri Byepass, Karnal. The claimants through petitions filed by them before the MACT claimed Rs. 7,50,000/- (for injuries sustained by Deepak Agnihotri), Rs. 3,50,000/- (for injuries sustained by Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri) and Rs. 2,00,000/- (for injuries sustained by Manoj Kumar. Learned MACT, in all allowed Rs. 2,97,000/- to Deepak Agnihotri on various counts. An amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was determined as compensation payable to his wife Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri whereas Manoj was held entitled to Rs. 30,000/-.

Inasmuch as no arguments at all have been addressed with regard to negligence, and for which there is no scope as well, as a firm Finding, based upon evidence has been recorded, that driver of the bus was negligent and for which alone accident had taken place, there is no necessity at all to go into that issue. The only debate in the present appeals is with regard to quantum of compensation. Before this matter is discussed any further, it will be useful to see the injuries sustained by the claimants.

Immediately after accident, Deepak Agnihotri was medico legally examined by Dr. D.P. Goel of Civil Hospital, Karnal, who found following injuries on his person: -

Multiple abrasions on dorsum of right hand.

Multiple abrasions on both the knees.

Incised would 1" x 1/4" x skin deep on front of right knee.

He was unable to lift the left shoulder completely. X-ray of the left shoulder was advised.

He was having multiple abrasions on left forehead.

He complained of pain in right chest. After getting first aid, he was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh where he was treated by Dr. Jaswant Rai, Professor of Orthopaedic, who found following musculo skeletal injuries on his person:-

a) Fracture rib 7th on the right side of the chest.

b) Displaced fracture grater tuberosity left arm bone. (Fracture dislocation for the upper end of the left arm bone).

Similarly, Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri was medico legally examined at Civil Hospital Karnal. Following injuries were found on her person by the doctor attending on her at Karnal:-

(1) Multiple abrasions on face, nose, upper Up and chin.

(2) Small abrasions on right ring finger.

(3) Small multiple abrasions on left fore-arm.

(4) Multiple abrasions on both the legs.

(5) She complained of pain right chest. X-ray was advised.

After getting first aid, she was referred to PGI where she was treated by Dr, Jaswant Rai, who found following injuries on her person:-

"1. Crack fracture upper end of the left arm bone.

Fracture 5th, 6th and 7th ribs of the right side of chest."

Manoj Kumar sustained following injuries:-

There was multiple small abrasion on frontal part of the tongue.

He was having bleeding per nose. X-ray of the nose was advised.

He was complaining of pain, left part of the chest. X-ray of chest was advised.

Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on front of left knee.

Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on front of left leg.

There was small swelling 1" x 1/2" on front of right knee. X-ray of the right knee was advised.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as mentioned above, granted Rs. 2,97,000/- to Deepak Agnihotri, on the following heads;-

For medical expenses 20,000/- 2. For permanent disability 27,000/- 3. For pain and suffering 30,000/- 4. For loss of income 40,000/- 5. For engagement of driver 1,80,000/- _________ 2,97,000/- _________ Insofar as Smt. Urvashi Agnihotri is concerned, she was granted compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- on following counts:-

i) For medical expenses 18,000/- ii) For permanent disability 22,000/- iii) For pain and suffering 25,000/- iv) For salary of servant 1,15,200/- _________ 1,80,200/- _________ Manoj Kumar was allowed compensation on the following heads:-

i) For loss of leave 3,000/- ii) For permanent disability 10,000/- iii) For medical expenses 8,000/- iv) For pain and suffering 9,000/- _______ Total 30,000/- _______ It is well made out from the injuries suffered by Deepak Agnihotri that there was fracture of 7th rib on right side of his chest. Mr. Agnihotri had displaced fracture grater tuberosity left arm bone (fracture dislocation of the upper end of the left arm bone). He remained bed ridden upto June 2, 1992. There is no need to go into the details and suffice it to mention that on the basis of evidence of none other than Dr. Jaswant Rai, a known Orthopaedician, the Tribunal recorded a firm finding of fact that Deepak Agnihotri had suffered 30 to 32% permanent disability. For having remained bed ridden and for having suffered permanent disability which would affect Mr. Agnihotri in his professional advancement for whole of his life, it could not be urged by learned counsel representing the D.T.C. that compensation awarded to him was in anyway excessive. In fact, during the course of arguments he had to candidly admit that Mr. Agnihotri, who is a lawyer of reasonably good standing in the High Court, would suffer in his professional career for all times to come and if it would have been permissible to grant damages on the guess work, i.e. by calculating the measure of damages commensurate to the present income of Mr. Deepak Agnihotri and the one he would have earned if he would have not met with the accident and suffered permanent disability, the damages could have been much more. In view of this Court, there is no scope for decreasing the compensation awarded to Mr. Deepak Agnihotri. Mr. Suri, learned counsel for the claimants also could not bring to the notice of this Court anything substantial which might entitle the claimants to more compensation from the one that has already been granted by the Tribunal. All that he could urge on behalf of the claimants was that the appellant Deepak Agnihotri, being a lawyer would certainly suffer far more loss in his professional career for all times to come and he was only 32 years of age when he met with the accident. The assessment of compensation can not be made on unforeseen events. Based upon income of Deepak Agnihotri at that stage when the accident took place and considering his future loss of income, the Tribunal, in view of this Court, has granted just and fair compensation. There is no scope for enhancement of the said compensation. Insofar as other claimants are concerned, nothing much has been argued from either side that might need either enhancement or slashing down the compensation granted to Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri and Manoj. There is absolutely no merit in these appeals also and the same are accordingly dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.