Mohd. Shakeel vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others

S.K.Mishra, J

Heard Shri Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri B.K. Gupta, Advocate for the Insurance Company / respondent no. 1.

There is no need to discuss the facts of this case in detail, as the fact of accident is not disputed, the factum of receiving serious injuries involving fracture of femur bone is not disputed; coverage of insurance of the offending vehicle against third party is also not disputed. The only question raised here is the quantum of compensation granted. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 43,000/- as compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation granted is very low keeping in view the injuries sustained by the appellant. He was operated and a rod has been fixed to the femur bone with the help of two nails. It is also contended that the appellant has spent a large sum of rupees towards his medical treatment but he could produce medical bills of Rs.26,000/- only. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that after two years of the accident / operation, the iron rod fixed with bone was removed by another operation, for which he has paid Rs. 26,000/- again.

Shri B. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently and emphatically resisted the claim of the appellant saying that appropriate amount has been awarded in this case. Appellant's femur bone was fractured, for which he was admitted in the hospital for three days and he was advised three months bed rest and then, physiotherapy. The amount of Rs. 5,000/-, awarded for pain and suffering is sufficient.

Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that grossly low amount of compensation has been awarded in this case. The monthly income of the appellant was assumed as Rs. 3,000/-. For loss of four months, it was calculated as Rs. 12,000/-. Then, the medical bills reveal that appellant has kept preserved medical bills for Rs. 26,000/-. It is a common knowledge that exact amount of medicine bills purchased from the medical store does not constitute the entire expenses incurred towards medical treatment of a person, who has sustained injuries in motor accident. Other expenses like expenses for special diet, expenses for attendant both at home and hospital and travelling expenses are not included in the medical bills, so this Court comes to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- should be granted for the medical expenses.

Amount of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering to a person, who has suffered fracture of femur bone, appears to this Court grossly inadequate. It is increased to Rs. 25,000/-. This Court is also inclined to allow Rs. 26,000/- for additional expenses towards the surgical procedure for removal of rod fixed. Hence, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,03,000/- to be paid to the appellant. The Insurance Company has already paid Rs. 43,000/-, so Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the appellant within three months along with annual simple interest @ 6% to be calculated from the presentation of this appeal i.e. from 21.02.2011. If the Insurance Company fails to pay the amount, as aforesaid along with accrued interest, within the stipulated time (supra), then it shall pay penal interest at the rate 15% per annum on Rs. 60,000/- from the date of filing of petition before the Tribunal concerned. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal concerned.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the above extent.

There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order be provided, as per Rules.