Gulab Singh vs Mr. Shubeg Singh and Another

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Gulab Singh, the

claimant sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries he suffered in a road side accident that took place during the night

intervening 27th and 28th of May 2008. His claim petition, brought u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act''), has been

allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 27.02.2010 in a sum of Rs.

1,11,000/-. Gulab Singh suffered multiple serious and grievous injuries. He was brought out from under the vehicle by the police and was taken to

CHC, Naraingarh. He was referred therefrom to PG1, Chandigarh. He was found to have got fractured both bones of his right leg. He also

suffered injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body. He has suffered permanent disability. For all these reasons, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-

is claimed as compensation.

The claim petition is resisted by the respondents. They have denied the aforesaid averments of the claimant and have denied the claimant to

deserve a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for his injuries.

Learned Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 64,000/- as loss of future income on account of the permanent disability. A sum of Rs. 63,000/- was

found to have been spent by the claimant on his treatment but under the IInd Schedule, he was found entitled to Rs. 15,000/- only on account of

the medical expenses, which was allowed to him. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, a sum of Rs. 4000/- for rich diet, a sum of Rs.

4000/- for expenses on attendant and another sum of Rs. 4000/- for transportation have also been allowed. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- is

assessed as compensation in favour of the claimant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accident took place on 27.05.2008. According to him, it is a case of fracture of both

bones of right leg. According to him, the claimant has lost future income and has been allowed only a sum of Rs. 64,000/- as compensation.

According to him, Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 4000/- each for rich diet, attendant and transportation are also on lower side. He has

further submitted that a sum of Rs. 63,000/- was spent in his treatment but learned Tribunal has allowed only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for medical

expenses.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that under the IInd Schedule there is limit fixed for medical expenses at

Rs. 15,000/- and learned Tribunal could not allow any sum above Rs. 15,000/- under the said Schedule. According to him, compensation has

been rightly assessed by learned Tribunal under the other heads and the same could not be enhanced in his case.

Though not argued before me, there has been a dispute between the parties regarding the nature of the disability. In the disability certificate Ex.

R-1 the word permanent is missing alongside the disability and therefore it was argued before learned Tribunal that it was not a case of permanent

disability. The disability in this case is due to shortening of right leg by 2 inches and this disability cannot improve because the length of the leg

cannot be increased at the age of the claimant. Hence, learned Tribunal settled the dispute by holding that the disability caused due to the

shortening of right leg by 2 inches cannot be anything except permanent. The disability in this case is functional, disability. Shortening of leg by two

inches is a handicap which will affect not only the future income but also future enjoyment of life. He may require such type of shoes for making up

the shortening of the leg. He requires to be compensated for the same.

However, I do not find any ground to increase the compensation on medical expenses. Though IInd Schedule is found to be suffering from

several defects in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, , yet those defects are with regard to

multiplier and the calculation of compensation. The limit fixed for medical expenses cannot be bypassed in any manner. Hence, the amount allowed

as compensation for medical expenses would remain the same.

In these circumstances, I enhance the compensation in the following manner:--

In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,11,000/- to Rs. 1,75,000/- which shall be payable to the

appellant as per the terms and conditions settled by learned Tribunal regarding interest, etc.