AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—These two Appeals (MAC. APP. 88/2004 and MAC. APP. 122/2004) arise out of a common judgment dated
05.12.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 2,02,000/- was awarded in
favour of Madhvi Devi (Appellant in MAC. APP. 88/2004) for having suffered the injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
01.12.1998. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant in MAC. APP. 88/2004 shall be referred as the Claimant and the Appellant in MAC.
APP. 122/2004, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, who was owner of the offending vehicle shall be referred as MCD.
On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. DL-
1G-A-0683 by the First Respondent. The Claimant suffered fracture of both bones of right leg, apart from injuries on other parts of the body. She
was immediately removed to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital where she remained admitted from 01.12.1998 to 10.12.1998. The Claimant was not
satisfied with the treatment in GTB Hospital. The Claimant was, therefore, admitted in Mamta Nursing Home where bone grafting was done. On
account of the injuries suffered, the Claimant became permanently disabled to the extent of 40% on account of united fracture of both bones leg
(R) with shortening of right leg by one inch, severe restriction of (R) ankle movement and mild restriction of (R) knee movement.
On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. DL-1G-A-
0683. It was proved that the Claimant was a housewife. She was awarded compensation of Rs. 1,02,000/-towards loss of earning capacity on the
notional income of Rs. 15,000/-. 5. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by the Claims
No. heads Tribunal
Medical Expenditure & Rs. 80,000/-
Conveyance
Permanent Disability Rs. 1,02,000/-
3 Pain & Suffering Rs. 10,000/-
Special Diet Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 2,02,000/-
The learned counsel for the Appellant (Claimant) urges that the compensation awarded towards gratuitous services rendered by the family
members and towards pain and suffering is on the lower side. No compensation has been awarded towards loss of amenities and attendant
charges. On the other hand, the contention raised in the Cross-Appeal filed by the MCD is that the involvement of the truck No. DL-1G-A-0683
owned by it was not established and thus the MCD was not liable to pay any compensation.
While dealing with the issue of involvement of the truck and the negligence, the Claims Tribunal held as under:
Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner and in discharge of that onus the petitioner had produced and examined the aforesaid 4
witnesses in both the cases which were consolidated during the course of evidence. In his statement PW1 Satyan Prakash had produced the MLC
No. B-4623/98 dated 01.12.1998 in respect of the petitioner Kalyan Singh and MLC No. B-4612/98 dated 01.12.1998 in respect of the
petitioner Madhvi Devi @ Madhu from the record of GTB Hospital and photocopies of the same are Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. On cross
examination there appears no challenge to this. That being so, I find no reason to discard these facts. Accordingly, from the statement of PW1 both
petitioners, Kalyan Singh and Madhvi Devi @ Madhu, have proved their respective MLC. This proves the injury sustained by both the petitioners
on 01.12.1998. PW2 Sh. Kalyan Singh had deposed that on 01.12.1998 he was going to St. Stephens Hospital on a two wheeler scooter along
with his wife Madhvi Devi, he was driving the scooter and Madhvi Devi was sitting on the pillion. At about 1.45 pm when his scooter reached near
Pushta No. 1, Sonia Vihar, one truck No. DL-1G-A-0683 came from the side of Chauhand Patti and hit his scooter from behind; that he as well
as his wife fell down on right and left side respectively and both of them sustained injuries. He further deposed that his index finger of the left hand
was fractured and feet of his wife was run over by the wheel of the truck, and that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the truck driver.
On cross examination there appears no challenge regarding the date, time and place of the alleged accident. However, suggestion has been made
to the fact that his scooter was not hit by the said truck or that it came over the stones lying on the road and as a result of that he lost balance and
he and his wife fell down. PW3 Madhvi Devi @ Madhu had also deposed on certain material facts and corroborated the version of PW2
regarding the date, time, place and the manner in which the accident had taken place while she was going to St. Stephens Hospital with her
husband, Kalyan Singh, on the said two wheeler scooter. On cross examination nothing has been suggested against the manner of driving the said
truck. However, it has been suggested that the scooter had fell down due to the fault of her husband or due to the rash and negligent driving of her
husband. The respondents had produced and examined RW1 Sh. Tara Chand, respondent no. 1, to rebut the evidence of the petitioner and in his
statement he had admitted the factum of the date, time and place of driving the said truck but in his statement he has deposed that he saw the
scooter of the petitioner lying fallen may be due to the mud lying on the side of pushta which was closed for traffic. The case suggested to PW2 is
substantially different as suggested to PW3 and at the same time no evidence has been led in that regard to prove that the scooter was already
lying fallen down. However, no reason has been extended as to why the police has falsely implicated them in the said accident that had taken place
with the said truck. He has admitted that the case was registered vide the said FIR and he was arrested and the vehicle was also seized. In view of
the testimony of PW2 & 3, registration of the case against respondent No. 1, seizure of the said vehicle and arrest of respondent no. 1. I find that
the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said truck by respondent no. 1 which resulted in injuries sustained by the
petitioner on his/her person. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioners have proved sustaining injuries on their person because of the accident with
truck No. DL-1G-A-0683 by the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 at the said date, time and place.
The MCD and its driver merely denied the involvement of the truck No. DL-1G-A-0683 in the accident. But, at the same time, no reason was
given for making a false statement by the Claimant and her husband PW2 Kalyan Singh and PW3 Madhvi Devi''s testimony are corroborated by
the registration of the criminal case against the driver of the truck. In the absence of any explanation as to why the MCD driver was falsely
implicated or in the absence of any suggestion to them in their cross-examination, I affirm the Claims Tribunal''s finding that the accident was
caused by the rash and negligent driving of truck No. DL-1G-A-0683 by the Respondent No. 1.
As far as award of compensation is concerned, Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) enjoins payment of just compensation.
In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, 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.
The disability certificate Ex. PW3/D shows that the Claimant suffered shortening of his right leg by one inch and restriction of movement of right
ankle and mild restriction in knee movement (R). No expert evidence was produced as to the exact impact of the disability on the Claimant''s work
as a housewife. In the circumstances, I would take that the Claimant''s capacity to work as a housewife and render gratuitous services must be
affected by only 20%. The Claims Tribunal had awarded loss of the gratuitous services on the notional income of Rs. 15,000/-.
This case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., MAC.
APP. 590/2011, decided on 30th January, 2012. This Court noticed the following judgments of the Supreme Court:-
(i) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others,
(ii) National Insurance Company Limited v. Deepika & Ors., 2010 (4) ACJ 2221,
(iii) Amar Singh Thukral v. Sandeed Chhatwal, ILR (2004) 2 Del 1,
(iv) Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others,
(v) Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Another Vs. R.M.K. Veluswami and Others,
(vi) A. Rajam Vs. M. Manikya Reddy and Another
(vii) Morris v. Rigby (1966) 110 Sol Jo 834 and
(viii) Regan v. Williamson 1977 ACJ 331 (QBD England), and laid down the principle for determination of loss of dependency on account of
gratuitous services rendered by a housewife. Para 34 of the judgment in Master Manmeet Singh (supra) is extracted hereunder:-
To sum up, the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife shall be:-
(i) Minimum salary of a Graduate where she is a Graduate.
(ii) Minimum salary of a Matriculate where she is a Matriculate.
(iii) Minimum salary of a non-Matriculate in other cases.
(iv) There will be an addition of 25% in the assumed income in (i), (ii) and (iii) where the age of the homemaker is up to 40 years; the increase will
be restricted to 15% where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years; there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is
more than 50 years.
(v) When the deceased home maker is above 55 years but less than 60 years; there will be deduction of 25%; and when the deceased home
maker is above 60 years there will be deduction of 50% in the assumed income as the services rendered decrease substantially. Normally, the
value of gratuitous services rendered will be NIL (unless there is evidence to the contrary) when the home maker is above 65 years.
(vi) If a housewife dies issueless, the contribution towards the gratuitous services is much less, as there are greater chances of the husband''s re-
marriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50% of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and
deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above.
(vii) There shall not be any deduction towards the personal and living expenses.
(viii) As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only a notional sum which may be up to Rs. 25,000/- (on present scale
of the money value) towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/-towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded.
(ix) Since a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss of estate.
The Claimant was aged 34 years. There was no evidence with regard to her educational qualification. Thus, the minimum wages of a non-
matriculate has to be taken to compute the award of compensation towards loss of gratuitous services. Thus, the loss of earning capacity has to be
in accordance with the percentage of loss in the gratuitous services rendered by a housewife. Thus, the loss of earning capacity comes to Rs.
1,02,240/- ( Rs. 2,130/- + 25% x 12 x 16 x 20%).
The Claimant remained in GTB Hospital for ten days and then in Mamta Nursing Hospital for one month. She remained an outdoor patient.
Thus, the Claimant must have not been able to carry household work for a period of six months and she would have needed an attendant to look
after her during that time. I would award a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- ( Rs. 2000 x 6) for the same.
Keeping in view the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and treatment, even if the accident occurred in 1998 the compensation of Rs.
10,000/- towards pain and suffering is on the lower side. The same is raised to Rs. 25,000/-.
Taking into consideration the fact that there is shortening of the leg by one inch and restriction in ankle and knee movement, the Claimant
would have difficulty in squatting, running and carrying out day to day activities. She is entitled to be compensated for the same. Considering that
this accident took place in the year 1998, I would make a provision of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of amenities in life.
The Compensation awarded is recomputed as under:
Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by the Awarded by this
No. heads Claims Tribunal Court
Medical Expenditure & Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/-
Conveyance
Permanent Disability /Loss of Rs. 1,02,000/- Rs. 1,02,240/-
Earning Capacity
Loss of Amenities in Life - Rs. 25,000/-
Attendant Charges ( Rs. 2000- Rs. 12,000/-
x 6)
Pain & Suffering Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
Special Diet Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 2,02,000/- Rs. 2,54,240/-
The enhanced compensation of Rs. 52,240/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of the filing of the Petition till its payment. The
enhanced compensation awarded shall be released to the Claimant on deposit.
The Respondent MCD is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 52,240/- along with interest with the Registrar General of this
Court within six weeks.
The MAC. APP. 88/2004 is allowed in above terms.
The MAC. APP. 122/2004 is dismissed.
Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the MCD. Pending Applications stand disposed of.