Master Ram Kumar vs Manish Kumar and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 31,364/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the Appellant for having suffered fracture of his right leg in an accident which occurred on 10.12.2008. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, which is stipulated hereinabove:-

1.

Medical expenses

Rs. 1,364/-

2.

Pain and Suffering etc.

Rs. 25,000/-

3.

Special Diet & Conveyance Charges

Rs. 5,000/-

Total=

Rs. 31,364/-

It is urged by learned counsel for the Appellant that no compensation has been awarded to the Appellant for loss of study and towards attendant charges. It is argued that compensation awarded towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, special diet and conveyance charges is low.

On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 National Insurance Company Ltd. urged that keeping in view of the injury suffered and the fact that treatment was received in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital (a Government Hospital), the compensation is just and reasonable.

The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of quantum of compensation as under:-

As per record petitioner PW2 has remain admitted in the hospital for two days only i.e. 10.12.2008 and 11.12.2008 and he had suffered fracture of right leg. The OPD treatment card of Sanjay Gandi Memorial Hospital shows that the petitioner as OPD patient also visited the hospital three times in the month of February, 2009. Though the petitioner has also placed on record one treatment card of Bhagwan Mahvir Hospital, but it is not record pertaining to the injured petitioner but is of some other person in the name of Raj Kumar. That treatment card is also of the period prior to the date of accident i.e. of November, 2008, whereas the accident took place on 09.12.2008 so cannot be relied upon. Hence as per record placed on file, petitioner remained under treatment for about two months only till end of February, 2009. The Plea taken by PW1 that petitioner remained under treatment for 8 months is not acceptable as correct. Petitioner has filed certain medical bills amounting to Rs. 1364/-. Though most of the treatment in govt. hospital was free of cost but some of medicines were purchased from outside as per bills. In such situation, petitioner is entitled to get reimbursement of these medical bills of Rs. 1364/- only. The claim of PW1 regarding spending approximately Rs. 15,000/- on treatment of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

PW1 stated that he had also spent amount of Rs. 15,000/- on special diet and conveyance, but it is not acceptable as correct. There was only two days admission of the petitioner in the hospital and 3 visits to hospital as OPD patient. The total claim on these items at Rs. 15,000/- is highly exorbitant and cannot be accepted keeping in view the status of the petitioner and his pre-accidental poor financial position. No proof of spending upon these items is brought on record. Though normally in case of sickness and serious injury, a special diet in the form of healthy food, juices, milk etc. is provided instead of or in addition to the normal food but it cannot be worth Rs. 15,000/- in a period of about two months as claimed. Accordingly I am of the view that maximum petitioner can be paid lump sum Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and conveyance charges.

Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that due to fracture etc., normal human life is also affected. Petitioner must have faced difficulty and inconvenience even to perform daily personal routine acts during period of treatment. He must have suffered great pain and sufferings. He must not have enjoyed the amenities of life properly for some time. He may not be able to walk or run due to fracture of leg for some time. He has not alleged that any future treatment is required by him. He has not suffered any permanent disability. Such type of non pecuniary losses cannot be assessed in terms of money but keeping in view the status and condition of the petitioner, extent of fracture, only two days admission in the hospital and the three visits in the hospital as OPD patient and no future treatment is required etc., he is granted lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, inconvenience and loss of amenities etc

A perusal of Trial Court record shows that the Appellant visited the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital on 3rd February, 2009, 24th February, 2009 and on an another date thereafter. On 24th February, 2009 apart from advising certain medicines, the Appellant was advised to have the support of Crepe Bandage. The Appellant's right leg remained in POP cast for three months and therefore the Appellant's studies must have been effected during the period of 3-4 months and some gratuitous service must have been rendered by the family members. In the circumstances, I would award a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of study and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards gratuitous service rendered by the family members. [Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Kumari Lalita 22 (1982) DLT 170 (DB)].

Rest of the amount does not call for any interference/enhancement. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Appeal till the date of payment. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited with Claims Tribunal along with interest and shall be kept in fixed deposit for period of 3 years. The Appellant shall be entitled to premature withdrawal of the amount if needed for his studies.

Appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending Applications stand disposed of.