AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.P. Singh, J.—Mrs. Imitiaz Bano filed a Claim Petition before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, claiming an amount of Rs.
1,61,25,197/- as compensation for 100% disability suffered by her because of severe injuries and irreparable damage to vertebra and spinal cord
resulting in TRAUMATIC PARAPLEGIA.
The owner and the driver were set exparte. The New India Assurance Company was permitted by the Tribunal to contest the claim additionally
on the grounds available to the owner and the driver of the vehicle.
Issues framed by the Tribunal read thus:
Whether accident involving injuries to the petitioner has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus bearing No: JK02E-
0979 by its driver respondent No. 2 on 18.08.1997? OPP
In case Issue No. l is proved in affirmative what is the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner and by whom? OPP
Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? O.P. Parties.
Relief.
S/Shri Showket Ali, Jaswant Gupta, Abdul Hamid Qazi, Uday Chand, Ghulam Nabi Mughal, Yassar Aziz, Dr. Aniece Chowdhary, Dr. D.N.
Paul, Vinod Bhardwaj and claimant, Imitiaz Bano, appeared in support -of the claim.
No evidence was produced by the insurer.
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu awarded an amount of Rs. 19,76,6567- along with 9% interest per annum under 17 Heads.
Aggrieved by the award, the claimant as also the insurer, filed appeals u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed both the appeals vide judgment dated 31st December, 2002. This judgment does not satisfy the
parties. Both of them are, thus, in appeal before us.
Shri R.K. Gupta, in nutshell, questions the quantum of compensation only on few counts and if his submissions succeed, the compensation
should be in the neighbourhood of (Rs. 15,000,00/-) Rupees fifteen lacs.
Shri R.S. Thakur, on the other hand, claims enhancement, which, if allowed, should be round about Rs. 50,000,00/- (Rupees fifty lacs).
According to Shri Thakur, claimant's claim for enhancement has been rejected without spelling out reasons for such rejection and in a
perfunctory manner.
We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties.
Let us first notice the findings, whereby claim for enhancement has been rejected.
So far as cross appeal preferred by the claimant bearing No. CIMA123/02 is concerned, that it is found to be without merit and is dismissed.
We do not find any reason in the order for rejection of the claim for enhancement.
We are, thus, unable to discern the reasoning, which had weighed with the learned Single Judge to reject the claimant's appeal for enhancement
of compensation.
A judicial finding, deciding rights and liabilities of the parties to a Us, shorn of reasons, we say, is no finding in the eyes of law.
It is trite that a judicial verdict must necessarily be supported by reasons. An unreasoned order cannot partake the character of a judicial order
or for that matter, a judicial finding. What enters the mind of a judge to come to a finding or conclusion can be gathered only if the mind is
disclosed. Mind cannot be said to have been disclosed unless reasons thereof are given.
We are living in an age of transparency. The society cannot, thus, conceive any administrative, quasi-judicial or other action shorn of reasons.
Judicial action unsupported by reasons cannot, thus, be sustained on any account whatsoever.
Examination of the impugned judgment demonstrates that learned Single Judge had examined the award of the Tribunal only with a view to find
as to whether or not it warranted any reduction in the amount awarded by the Tribunal. No effort appears to have been made for examining as to
whether or not any increase was warranted in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
We had, at one stage, thought of remanding the case to learned Single Judge for its judgment on the quantum of compensation, but this course,
we feel, would aggravate the sufferings of the claimant, who has been litigating in the Courts since 1998. Seven years' long wait by a claimant, is
too long a period to justify any fresh bout to litigation, which may emanate from the remand order. We, thus, propose to decide as to what would
be the just compensation in the present case. In order to assess just compensation, we would first notice the medical evidence.
Dr. Prof. D.N. Pal, Moulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi (now Institute of Spinal Injury Centre, New Delhi), states on oath as follows:
On questions put in exam.-in-chief, the witness deposes that on 22nd of August, 1997, I got Imtiaz Bano Qazi, admitted in Indian Spinal Injuries
Centre, Basant Kunj, New Delhi and diagnosed her a case of spinal injury Dll - D12 level and got her MIR done on the same day. The report of
MIR burst fracture of body and posterior elements of D-12 with near complete transaction of cord with significant epidural collection at same
level. Surgery was done on 25-08-1997, when I found some bone fragments impregnated in the spinal cord especially the conus area. Bones
fragments were taken out and release of pressure was done on spinal cord. Spinal cord at that time was black in colour. Subsequently, she was
operated upon for bed sore on 23rd September, 1998 and after giving prolonged physiotherapy the patient was discharged on 5-11-1997. In my
opinion, I again examined her on 29th October, 1998 but no progress was found because the injuries were so severe which had damaged the
spinal cord in the beginning as shown in the MIRE report before operation. Yesterday i.e. 12-2-1999,1 again examined her and found that she is
still paraplegia i.e. paralysis both lower limbs resulting in permanent impairing of power and sensation of both legs with loss of control of stools,
mensuration and urine. I am of the opinion that she needs constant physiotherapy and should be nursed on fowlers bed with water mattresses
(alpha bed) and should be rehabilitated with power wheel chair and counseling both psychologically and sexually as she does not feel any sensation
on that part. She has to be supported by attendants one male and one female constantly to move her chair and should be rehabilitated in disabled
car. Such like patients has less expectancy of life because of urinary infection following loss of control on urine, especially female patients. She also
requires constant medical superintendence whenever she needs.
Certificate dated 5-11-1997 on the file is issued by me which bears my signature and is correct (Marked as ""EXPW-DN""). The discharge
summary/certificate shown to me is issued by Dr. Thomas on my advice. The hospital is private and not Government. Patients are treated on
payment basis. I do not find any possibility of any improvement. She has suffered 100% permanent disability, which is life long. She can not deliver
a baby now. She requires life long treatment. She requires good diet and hygienic atmosphere to stay. She requires follow-up treatment.
In cross examination by learned Counsel for Insurance Co's Advocate stated it is with a view to avoid further deterioration that she requires further
treatment, I am not the owner of the Hospital since it is trust property. It is in order to avoid stiffness of joints that she requires constant
physiotherapy. She cannot control wheel chair herself. No other question was put.
Dr. Aniece Chowdhary, R/o Residency Road, Jammu, states as under:
Questioned by the counsel for petitioner the witness stated that I had been looking after Mrs. Imtiaz Bano w/o Mr. A.H. Qazi at her residence
since last week of Nov. 1997. She had sustained road traffic accident on 18-8-1997 and thereafter she was shifted to Delhi for her treatment of
spinal cord injury. The petitioner had developed complete transaction of the spinal cord at D11 and D12 and thereby she has become completely
paraplegic. I am visiting about 2 to 3 times per month at her residence and charging Rs 100/- per visit. The petitioner has not shown any sign of
improvement since then till date and then disability is likely to continue life long. The petitioner needs the assistance of an attendant. The petitioner
can only move on wheel chair and not otherwise. The petitioner has already engaged a Nurse to change cather. The petitioner requires special diet
also because she is not ambulatory.
Cross-questioned by the counsel for respondents the witness stated that I am MBBS and MS and specialist in ENT. Today I have not seen any
prescription in the court file prescribed by me. Some times I issue prescriptions also as and when need arises. I am an Income Tax payee. I have
shown the income of this patient in my Income Tax return. I had been treating the patient in my capacity as ENT specialist because the patient is
more prone to throat infections, as well as other infections as here resistance gets lowered. Paraplegic patients are more prone to all types of
infections compared to normal persons.
No further question was asked in re-examination.
Shri Abdul Hamid Qazi is the husband of the claimant, who deposed before the Tribunal to say that he is the husband of the petitioner and
Advocate by profession. Imtiaz Bano, his wife, met with an accident on 18-08-1997 while coming from Kishtwar to Jammu. Her spinal cord was
fractured in the said accident. She has become paraplegic. She was airlifted to Government Hospital, Jammu, and then to All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, New Delhi. An amount of Rs. 21,485/- was spent as air fare. Mr. Qazi quantifies the expenditure spent in the hospital as Rs.
1,75,3227-. He supports his case by vouchers produced before the Tribunal. Expenditure on medicines and other articles has been quantified as
Rs. 8,622/-. He stated that he had purchased molded T.L.S.O., as advised by the doctors. He states that acting on the advice of the doctors, two
male and two female attendants have been employed and an expenditure of Rs. 65,000/- has been incurred on these attendants. In addition, an
amount of Rs. 97,700/- has been mentioned to have been spent on employment of two attendants/servants for taking care of his wife. Describing
the condition of his wife, he states that she does not have control over her urine, bowel and menstruation and two attendants, namely Shakila Bano
and Saif-ud-Din have been employed to take care of and look after the injured. That the petitioner requires physiotherapy regularly. This is being
provided to her by Mr. Jaswant Gupta, who is being paid Rs. 1,500/- per month and till the date of his statement, he had been paid an amount of
Rs. 49,000/-. Second visit of the injured to Delhi, has been reported by him to be on 28th October, 1998. Details of the expenditure has been
mentioned by him in his statement. Mr. Qazi states that his wife requires four Power Wheel Chairs for present and future. In cross-examination, he
stated that his wife could get only Rs. 5,000/- as medical reimbursement, from the Government.
Petitioner states that because of the negligent and rash driving of Bus No. JK-02E-0979 on 18-7-1997, by its driver, she received multiple
injuries in the accident and her spinal cord was broken. She supported the version given by her in the claim petition. She has stated that she cannot
move and has no control over her urine and stools and is receiving physiotherapy from expert and has employed two attendants to look after her.
She submits that she has been rendered unfit for service. She deplores the accident and submits that her life has been ruined and that she cannot
take care of her children. Other evidence on record, too, supports the case projected by the injured claimant.
The Insurance Company, which had sought permission to contest the claim for and on behalf of the driver and the owner of the vehicle, too,
did not produce any evidence to rebut the case set up by the claimant. No additional objection too was taken by the Insurance Company either on
its own behalf or on the behalf of the driver and the owner of the vehicle.
Imtiaz Bano has claimed compensation under the following heads:
The petitioner claims Rs. 1, 50, 93, 819.00 as compensation on the following basis:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of medicine etc. purchased in Rs. 1030.00 (Bill attached as
Jammu on 18.8.97 & 19.8.97. Ann-12)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges of C.T. Scan on 19.8.97 in Rs. 2200.0 (Bill attached as
Sigma Dignostic Centre Jammu. Ann-13)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-lifting charges from Jammu to Rs. 21485.00 (Bill attached as
Delhi on 20.8.97 with two attendants Ann-14)
by Indian Airlines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expenditure incurred in treatment Rs. 175322.00 (Bill attached
in Indian Spinal Injuries Centre New as Ann- 15) and the receipts
Delhi. of payment made are
attached as Ann-16 to 21.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicines purchased from market Rs. 8622.00(Bills attached as
during treatment in Indian Spinal Ann-22 to Ann-31)
Injuries Centre and the blood
Purchased from White Cross Blood
Bank, New Delhi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Moulded ILSo. Rs. 2200.00 (Bill attached as
Ann-32)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boarding, lodging diet and travelling Rs. 65,000.00 (Bill attached
charges of two males and two females at Ann-33)
attendants from 28.8.97 to 5.11.97
during treatment of petitioner in
Delhi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air travelling charges of the Rs. 9338.00 (Bill attached
petitioner along with two attendants Ann-34)
from New Delhi to Jammu on
6.11.97, by Jet Airways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expenditure to be incurred for future Rupees Ten lacs
treatment and special diet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the nature of disability, Rupees Ten lacs,
the petitioner engaged a female
nursing attendant from 7.11.1997
and is paying Rs. 1500A P.M to her
with yearly increase of Rs. 200/-
besides free boarding, Lodging diet
and clothing and the engagement to
be continued life long, according to
the life span of 70 years the services
of the attendant are needed and as
such, the attendant is to be continued
for about 32 years, the wages of the
attendant approximately amount to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of the disability, the Rupees Three lacs,
petitioner is unable to look household
affairs and the minor children as well
as their schooling. The petitioner has
engaged a male servant and is paying
Rs. 1500/- P.M to him. The services of
the male Servant are to be continued
for at least 15 years. The wages of
male servant amount to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of disability, the petitioner Rupees Ten lacs.
requires a specially designed motor
vehicle for travelling and the driver
is to be engaged also. The cost of the
vehicle and the salary of the driver
approximately comes to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of income : in view of the Rupees Fifty lacs.
seriousness of disability the
petitioner will lose her Govt. job as
teacher and accordingly the future
promotion prospects to the post of
Master, Headmaster and Sr.
Lecturer. Due to loss of service at this
stage when 19 years of service is yet
left, the petitioner will lose the salary
and other pecuniary benefits. The
total loss of income on account of loss
of service as Govt. Teacher including
future prospects of promotion and
consequential monetary benefits
come to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical pain, sufferings loss of Rupees fifteen lacs.
pleasure and charm in life, mental
agony and torture life, loss of love &
affection due to disability. Rupees
fifty lacs. 15. Loss of future prospects
of life and amenities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribunal has allowed compensation for an amount of Rs. 19,76,656/- under 17 Heads:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i/ For medical expenses Rs. 2, 60, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii/ For expenses on attendant till date. Rs. 82, 500/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii/- For future expenses on attendants. Rs. 2, 70, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv/- For transportation charges Rs. 60, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
v/ For expenses on future physiotherapy till Rs. 82, 500/-
date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi/- For expenses on future physiotherapy Rs. 2, 70, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii/- For catheterization charges till date. Rs. 25, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii/- For future catheterization charges. Rs. 40, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix/- For future treatment. Rs. 50, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x/- For fowler and alfa bed for the present. Rs. 30, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xi/- For future folwer and alfa bed Rs. 30, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xii/- For present power wheel chair Rs. 1, 25, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xiii/- For future power wheel chair Rs. 1, 25, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xiv/- For special diet Rs. 50, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xv/- For loss of income during treatment Rs. 76, 656/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xvi/- For pain and suffering Rs. 2,00, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xvii/- For loss of amenities of life Rs. 2, 00, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: - Rs. 19, 76, 656/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to record its finding on quantum of compensation, the Tribunal held as under:
From the statements of the petitioner and her husband Abdul Hamid Qazi corroborated by the statements of the doctors, it has been proved that
the petitioner substained serious spinal cord injury and has become totally paraplegic. She was treated in the Indian Spinal injuries Centre Vasant
Kunj New Delhi from 28.08.1997 to 05.11.1997 and then from 28.1P.1998 to P7.11.1998. It is an admitted fact that the said hospital is a
private hospital and admittedly the treatment is expensive. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,75,322/- on treatment expenses
incurred on her at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre till P5.11.1997. The said amount is supported by a bill marked as annexure-15. She has further
placed on the file the medical bills of the medicines purchased at Delhi and these bills amounting to Rs. l0,866/- have marked as annexure-22 to
The annexures 12 and 13 are bills amounting to Rs. 3240/- in respect of the medicines purchased at Jammu. She again remained admitted in
Spinal Injuries Centre Delhi from 28. I0. 1998 to 07.11.1998 and according to the husband of the petitioner he incurred an expenditure of above
Rs. 24,425/-. He further paid Rs. l3,000/- as fee to doctor till date and spent about Rs. 33,000/- for the purchase of catheter etc. In total the
petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,59,952/- say Rs. 26,00,000/- on treatment till date. Taking into consideration the nature of the
injuries and the treatment in an expensive hospital in my opinion, the amount claimed by the petitioner under the head ""Medical Expenses"" is just
and reasonable and this amount is awarded to her...
We would now analyse as to whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal represents just and proper compensation. Although various
judgments were cited by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, yet, we find that law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control of India and Anr., still holds the field. This was a case where the injured had become paraplegic and various aspects of
assessing just compensation were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
We would refer to few paragraphs of the judgment before considering the findings of the Tribunal.
Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as
pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being
calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical
calculations. In order of appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii)
loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include : (i) damages
for mental and physical shock, suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters,
i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury
the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress
of life.
It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practicing lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the
injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the
appellant and for having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why
it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident the
object is to compensate such injury ""so far as money can compensation"" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or
personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.
In the case Ward v. James 1965 1 All ER 563, it was said:
Although you cannot given a man so gravely injured much for his ""lost years"", you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened
span, that is, during his expected ""years of survival"".
You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you
compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to
back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and Juries
have to do the best they can and given him that they think is fair. No wonder they find it well-night insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the
incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with
the changes in the value of money"".
In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess
work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements
have to be viewed with objective standards.
This Court in the case of C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Others, , in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act
has observed (at p. 380):
In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is
inevitable"".
In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said:
Non-pecuniary loss : the pattern. Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be
the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of
conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into
which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer,
is reflected in the actual amount of the award.
The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in
the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases.
Adopting the parameters laid down in the above quoted judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we would now examine the submissions
of learned Counsel for the parties.
Submission of Shri R.K. Gupta, Advocate, that medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal are on higher side and that the patient would not
require two Fowlers and Alfa beds and more than one Motorised Wheel Chair, we may say is untenable because we do not find any evidence in
rebuttal by the insurer as against the expert evidence of the two doctors and oral evidence, which eloquently speaks of the requirement of two
Fowlers and Alfa Beds, besides more than one Motorised Wheel Chair. In view of the unrebutted evidence of the claimant, we do not find any
fault with this finding of the Tribunal that the claimant-injured requires more than one Fowlers and Alfa Beds and more than one Motorised Wheel
Chairs. Submission of Shri Gupta that claim for expenses spent on medicines etc. is reimbursable to the claimant because she is a Government
servant, is also untenable and unjustified in view of what has been held in Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. and Another Vs. Priyank, .
It has been held in the aforesaid judgment that claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, arise out of a contract of insurance and the liability flowing
from this contract, cannot be avoided merely because the claim for medical bills is reimbursable to the injured. We accept this view in rejecting the
submission of Shri Gupta.
We have examined the submission of Shri R.S. Thakur too. We will now deal with his submissions.
A paraplegic patient suffers 100% disability throughout his life. It is a strange phenomenon where the mind becomes active and the body refuses to
go with the contemplation of the mind of the injured. Such a patient suffers immensely and, thus, needs more than one attendant, who may look
after such patient, 24 hours. The mental health of such a patient too is required to be taken care of.
A Tribunal seized of claim cases in respect of such patients, has to be considerate and humane, for, such is not a case of a person, who can
manage his affairs or is claiming compensation for the loss of some one.
We find substance in the submissions of Shri Thakur that the approach of the Tribunal, in this case, has been, to some extent, penurious.
The claimant had proved through oral evidence as also through expert witnesses that she required the help of more than one attendants
throughout her life. The Tribunal was, thus, required to award compensation by taking into account the need of the claimant for more than one
attendants. The Tribunal has, however, allowed the expenses, present and future for only one attendant.
We are satisfied that in the present case, the expenses for two attendants were required to be awarded and the Tribunal has faulted in not
allowing compensation claim on the basis of expenses to be incurred for two attendants.
We further feel that the Tribunal has erred in adopting 15 as the suitable multiplier by bracketing the case of the claimant in the age group of 40 to
45.
It is admitted case of the parties that the age of the injured at the time of the accident was less than 40 years. She was, thus, required to be
bracketed in the age group of 35 to 40 years. Such being the case, the suitable multiplier, which was required to be applied by the Tribunal, in
assessing future expenses of attendants, would be 16 as against 15 adopted by the Tribunal. We, accordingly, modify Claims Nos. 2 and 3 to read
as Rs. 1,65,0007- and Rs. 5,76,000/- respectively.
We further find that the expert evidence had prescribed hygienic and special diet for the claimant. This aspect does not appear to have been
taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded under this count too needs to be raised. We, accordingly, raise
compensation for special diet from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. We further find that claims Nos. 16 and 17 too require to be raised in view of
the condition of the patient and the future loss of amenities, which she is likely to suffer in the future. We, accordingly, raised claims Nos. 16 and
17 to Rs. 2,50,000/- for each claim.
The modified claims, to which the appellant/claimant would be entitled, would read thus:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i/ For medical expenses Rs. 2, 60, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii/ For expenses of 2 attendants till date Rs. 1,65,000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii/- For future expenses on attendants. Rs. 5, 76, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv/- For transportation charges Rs. 0,60, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
v/ For expenses on future physiotherapy till Rs. 0,82, 500/-
date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi/- For expenses on future physiotherapy Rs. 2, 70, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii/- For catheterization charges till date. Rs. 0,25, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii/- For future catheterization charges. Rs. 0,40, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix/- For future treatment. Rs. 0,50, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x/- For fowler and alfa bed for the present. Rs. 0,30, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xi/- For future folwer and alfa bed Rs. 0,30, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xii/- For present power wheel chair Rs. 1,25, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xiii/- For future power wheel chair Rs. 1, 25, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xiv/- For special diet Rs. 1,50,000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xv/- For loss of income during treatment Rs. 0,76, 656/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xvi/- For pain and suffering Rs. 2,50, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xvii/- For loss of amenities of life Rs. 2,50, 000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: - Rs. 25,65,156/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We, therefore, while allowing the appeal of the claimant/appellant [LPA (C) No. 2P/20P3], set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge and
modify that of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, and direct that the award shall stand modified for an amount of Rs. 25,65,156/-
instead of Rs. 19,76,656/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant shall be entitled to a interest @ 9% per annum from the date she lodged her
claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu.
LPA (C) No. 27/2PP3, filed by New India Assurance Company, is, accordingly, dismissed.