National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another vs Sukhdev Kaur and Another

A.L. Bahri, J.—In this appeal, challenge is to the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala dated December 1, 1983 vide which a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was allowed as compensation to Sukhdev Kaur along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum thereon from the date of the institution of the claim application, i.e., October 19, 1982 till realisation. This appeal has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. with whom the ill-fated jeep was insured and Rajesh Kumar, owner of the jeep. Award was also made in another claim application with which we are not concerned in this appeal.

Sukhdev Kaur and Mehnga Singh were sitting on a bench, Sukhdev Kaur holding her infant child. They were to board a bus from bus stand of village Rehana Jattan. Jeep No. PNW 5713 driven by Neel Kanth came at a rash speed from Hoshiarpur side and struck against the bench on which Mehnga Singh and Sukhdev Kaur were sitting. Mehnga Singh was run over by the jeep and Sukhdev Kaur suffered injuries. Ultimately her leg had to be amputated. After the impact, the jeep struck against the gate of the nearby school and stopped. Mehnga Singh died on reaching the hospital whereas Sukhdev Kaur was admitted. As already noticed above, Sukhdev Kaur''s leg had to be amputated. She also received other injuries. Sukhdev Kaur claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered. Legal representatives of Mehnga Singh filed a separate claim application. Both the cases were tried together and were contested. It was denied that Neel Kanth was driving the jeep. It was also denied that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently. When the jeep was coming, a bus was noticed parked at the bus stand, Rehana Jattan, the driver of the jeep applied brakes which failed and the jeep struck against the pillar of the gate. The accident could not be avoided.

The following issues were framed:

(1)Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by driver Neel Kanth? OPP

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount the claimants are entitled and from whom and in what respect? OPP

(3) Relief.

The Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Neel Kanth. Under issue No. 2, it was held that Sukhdev Kaur was entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-as under:

(i) Towards medical treatment after the accident Rs. 8,000/- (ii) Towards future medical treatment and diet Rs. 24,000/- (iii) Towards loss of limb, pain and suffering, enjoyment of life etc. Rs. 20,000/- (iv) Towards expenses for keeping a maid at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for 20 years Rs. 48,000/- ------------ Total: Rs. 1,00,000/-

Although in the grounds of appeal, finding on the question of negligence was also disputed, however, during arguments it was not pressed. Finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is, therefore, affirmed.

With regard to issue No. 2, learned counsel for the appellants has challenged two of the items on which compensation was allowed to Sukhdev Kaur. Other items are not being challenged. The contention is that the Tribunal was in error in allowing compensation on account of special diet at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for twenty years, more so when the doctor opined special diet was required for a few years and by a few years it could not be taken as twenty years. The second challenge is with regard to the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per mensem for employing a maidservant for a period of twenty years. The contention again is that after Sukhdev Kaur is fully recovered, she would not need any help.

AW 2, Dr. S.K. Malagar, medically examined Sukhdev Kaur on September 19, 1982 and found the following five injuries:

Left knee�(i) Avulsion of skin over anterior aspect of knee 3 1/2" X 2 1/2.

(ii) Lacerated wound over head of left fibula IW X 1" with chip fracture of underlying bone.

Right thigh/knee�(iii) Big lacerated wound just above the right knee joint 5" X 3 1/2" with extensive laceration of underlying muscles and badly comminuted fracture of lower and right femur and laceration of popliteal artery in the wound.

(iv) (Sic.)

(v) Multiple lacerations of skin on lateral and medial as well posterior aspect of the lower thigh and knee.

Since distal pulses in the limb could not be felt, the patient needed amputation of the limb. Injury No. 3 opined to be grievous and injury No. 4 dangerous to life. Exh. A-2 is the copy of the medico-legal report. The injuries, according to the doctor, could be suffered in a vehicular accident. Sukhdev Kaur remained in the hospital from September 19, 1982 to October 20,1982 and thereafter from January 12, 1983 to January 22, 1983. Her leg was amputated. She developed infection of the bone of the amputated limb. She continued to remain under the treatment. Even at the time of recording of statement of the doctor in May, 1983. Sukhdev Kaur was getting treatment. The doctor stated that once infection of the bone sets in, it becomes a chronic problem and the treatment may continue for another few years. The condition of Sukhdev Kaur suffered considerably in her health and she needed special diet during her ailment and that she will continue to need special diet till she is fully recovered. In view of the above evidence, it was not required of Sukhdev Kaur to specifically state that she was to take special diet either during the treatment or in future. The contention of counsel for the appellant that Sukhdev Kaur has not stated that she was taking special diet thus cannot be accepted. The opinion of Dr. S.K. Malagar, PW 2, in this respect was not challenged during cross-examination. It was not got clarified as to what the doctor meant by a few years. Be that as it may, allowing compensation on account of special diet for a period of twenty years was not called for in this case. By a few years, it can be taken to be five years at the maximum and on that account just compensation payable to Sukhdev Kaur on account of special diet at the rate of Rs. 100/- per mensem should be Rs. 6,000/-. The award of the Tribunal needs modification in this respect.

With the amputation of one leg and injuries on the other, Sukhdev Kaur is to constantly use crutches. That being the position, she would not be in a position to help her two infant children or to do other domestic work. She would need domestic help throughout her life. In fact, as per evidence produced, a servant was engaged on a pay of Rs. 150/-per month along with food, lodging and clothing which costs in all Rs. 200/- per month as stated by AW 5 Sukhdev Kaur. There is no reason to discard this evidence. Sukhdev Kaur is aged about 23/24 years and twenty would be reasonable multiplier for allowing compensation under this head. The Tribunal rightly allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per mensem for twenty years in this respect.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed. There is no order as to costs. The award of the Tribunal is modified. Sukhdev Kaur claimant will get compensation of Rs. 82,000/- along with 12 per cent per annum interest thereon from the date of institution of the claim application till realisation.