AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
The present appeals are arising out of the award dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Vth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in M.C.C.No.999/2008.
The facts of the case reveal that an accident took place on 18.06.2007 at 03:30PM and the claimant who was aged about 12 years at the relevant point of time received serious injuries.
The liability of the Insurance Company has not been disputed before this Court. The undisputed facts also reveal that the child was at the first admitted to Chirayu Hospital and he was taken regular treatment at Lilawati Hospital and Research Centre, Bombay for three months. There was a fracture of skull and disfiguration of face also. The claims Tribunal has awarded total Rs.1,49,000/- under various heads i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards special diet and Rs.29,000/- for travelling expenses as the claimant was required to go to Lilawati Hospital Bombay for treatement, however, in respect of the bills submitted by the claimant towards the treatment taken at Lilawati Hospital, Bombay, not a single penny has been awarded. The reason assigned by the claims Tribunal is that the bills issued by the Lilawati Hospital are in fact duplicate copies and, therefore, no amount has been awarded. It is really strange that the documents which are proved, marked as Exhibit P/13 and which are the bills of Lilawati Hospital, Bombay have not been taken into account and the amount has not been granted by the Claims Tribunal. The bills which are on record in the file are for a sum of Rs.95,535/- and the claimant is certainly entitled for enhancment of the award to the tune of Rs.95,535/-.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.2,44,535/-. The claimant shall be entitled for interest also on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 21.04.2008. The amount already paid to the claimant shall be adjusted.
In the other connected matter, the Insurance Company argued before this Court that it is a case of contributory negligence. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment delivered in the case of Pawar Kumar and another vs. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal and others, reported in 2014(1)ACCD 412(SC). Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
"6. The distinction between the principles of composite and contributory negligence has been dealt with in Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (Chapter 21) (15th Edition, 1998). It would be appropriate to notice the following passage from the said work:-
'WHERE two or more people by their independent breaches of duty to the plaintiff cause him to suffer distinct injuries, no special rules are required, for each tortfeasor is liable for the damage which he caused and only for that damage. Where, however, two or more breaches of duty by different persons cause the plaintiff to suffer a single injury the position is more complicated. The law in such a case is that the plaintiff is entitled to sue all or any of them for the full amount of his loss, and each is said to be jointly and severally liable for it. This means that special rules are necessary to deal with the possibilities of successive actions in respect of that loss and of claims for contribution or indemnity by one tortfeasor against the others. It is greatly to the plaintiffâs advantage to show that that he has suffered the same, indivisible harm at the hands of a number of defendants for he thereby avoids the risk, inherent in cases where there are different injuries, of finding that one defendant is insolvent (or uninsured) and being unable to execute judgment against him. The same picture is not, of course, so attractive from the point of view of the solvent defendant, who may end up carrying full responsibility for a loss in the causing of which he played only a partial, even secondary role.
.............
The question of whether there is one injury can be a difficult one. The simplest case is that of two virtually simultaneous acts of negligence, as where two drivers behave negligently and collide, injuring a passenger in one of the cars or a pedestrian, but there is no requirement that the acts be simultaneous........¦"
In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the present case is not a case of contributory negligence, it is case of composite negligence and therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
C.C. as per rules.