Nandkishore vs Jagdish Chand and Others

Viney Mittal, J.—The present appeal has been filed by appellant-claimant Nand-kishore, who was injured in an accident on 13.11.1997 and had suffered a fracture of the pelvic bone and a rupture of urinary tract, besides some other injuries.

The appellant has been awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore and has claimed enhancement of compensation in the present appeal.

The factum of the accident and the injuries suffered by appellant Nandkishore have not been disputed by the respondents.

Dr. Chandrashekhar Thatte, Urologist has appeared as AW 1 and has proved his medical report and certificates issued by him to the injured. It has been opined by the aforesaid doctor that urinary tract of the claimant-injured had been severely damaged and required a surgery for bringing the same to normal. The doctor has also opined that on account of the injuries suffered by the injured, he had been rendered temporarily impotent and was unable to perform sexual intercourse.

Dr. Narendra Patidar, Consulting Surgeon of Gokuldas Hospital, Indore has also appeared as AW 3. Dr. Patidar has proved the fact of injured Nandkishore having been admitted to Gokuldas Hospital with injuries and the treatment given to him.

The learned Tribunal on the basis of medical evidence and on the basis of other evidence led by the claimant has found it as a fact that the accident in question had been caused due to rashness and negligence of the truck driver, Kamal Singh, respondent No. 2, who had reversed the truck without taking due precautions and thereby hit Nandkishore, who was standing behind the truck, causing him serious injuries. On account of the aforesaid fact, the injured Nandkishore has been found to be entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered by him for the pain and suffering, for the loss of income and for the medical expenses incurred by him. A total amount of Rs. 1,05,000 has been assessed. The said amount includes Rs. 40,000 as general damages, Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering suffered by the claimant, Rs. 5,000 for loss of income for a period of six months and Rs. 50,000 as medical expenses incurred by the injured.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant has argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was much on the lower side inasmuch as, neither the general damages had been assessed properly nor the future medical requirements of the claimant had been kept in view. Learned Counsel also maintains that looking to the age of the injured-claimant, who was only 25 years of age at the time of accident, the Tribunal should have also awarded compensation for the sexual deformity suffered by the claimant.

I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions and find merit in the same.

The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that on 13.11.1997, the claimant had suffered injuries while mini truck No. MP 09-KA 9082, was being reversed by Kamal Singh, driver. The negligence of the driver is clearly proved from the record and has been so found by the learned Tribunal.

In my considered view, the Tribunal has clearly erred in law as well as on facts, while assessing the compensation awarded to the claimant. Since the claimant Nandkishore was only 25 years of age on the date of accident, therefore, in my considered view he should have been awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for general damages and towards pain and suffering, whereas he has been awarded merely an amount of Rs. 50,000 under the aforesaid two heads.

Similarly, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, it is apparent that the claimant would require future medical treatment also. A sum of Rs. 20,000 additionally is required to be paid for that purpose.

Consequently, the total amount of compensation payable to claimant-injured would come to Rs. 2,75,000. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. However, the interest at the rate of 9 per cent awarded by the Tribunal on the original compensation shall remain intact. As directed by the Tribunal, the entire compensation shall be payable by the insurance company-respondent No. 3.

The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. C.C. as per rules.