Ram Dhan vs State of Haryana and Another

A.L. Bahri, J.—Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar on December 24, 1983 awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- as, compensation on account of the injuries suffered in an accident. On the amount awarded, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the order was also allowed.

The accident took place on October 18, 1982 at about 1 p.m. The appellant was going on a scooter from Hissar side towards Delhi on his left side of the road. When he was passing the over-bridge, Bus No. HYB 2147 belonging to Haryana Roadways driven, by Sher Singh came from the opposite direction. On coming towards the wrong side, the bus hit the scooter of the appellant who suffered injuries. The appellant was removed to Sapra Hospital, Hissar. Twice he was operated upon His leg ultimately was shortened by 11/2". The disability was 30 per cent. In the claim application, the appellant claimed Rs. 40,000/-. The appellant was working as a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department drawing Rs. 850/-''per month as salary. The accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by Sher Singh. The claim was contested by the respondents, Haryana State and the Haryana Roadways. The negligence on the part of Sher Singh in driving the bus was denied According to them, there was no impact with the scooter. On the issues framed, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by Sher Singh resulting in causing injuries to the appellant Thus, the appellant was allowed Rs. 24,000/-as compensation i. e. Rs. 13,000/- on account of the treatment and injury suffered and Rs. 11,000/- on account of loss of pay for 13 months. The claimant Ram Dhan has come up in appeal.

The contention of counsel for the appellant is that highly inadequate compensation has been fixed by the Tribunal under the head of injury and treatment. He has referred to the statement of P. W. 3 Dr. M. R. Sapra, who operated upon the leg of the appellant and gave the opinion that about a sum of Rs. 10,0007- was likely to be spent on the treatment The doctor also proved receipts of his hospital, Exhibits P. W. 3/1 to P. W. 3/10. The total amount of these bills-cum-receipts is to the tune of Rs. 1,100/-. On the other hand, Additional Advocate General has argued that since the appellant did not take treatment from the Government Hospital, he is not entitled to any amount spent on his treatment. He has further argued that a sum of Rs. 13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal includes medical expenses already made and to be made in future as well as compensation for the injury suffered i. e. pain and suffering.

When a person is involved in an accident and suffers injuries and is taken by another person to the nearby hospital, may be private, the injured cannot be re-fused j compensation on account of treatment taken from the private hospital even though at the Government hospital being a Government servant he could have got free treatment. The appellant is employed as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department and is thus a Government employee. Whatever he had to jspend on medicines while his stay in the Government hospital, he was to be reimbursed by the State. If he had taken treatment from the private hospital, there is no reason why he should not be reimbursed for the medicines which he purchased for his treatment. May be under the rules governing his service conditions, the department may not have reimbursed for the medicines prescribed by a private doctor. However, such rules cannot be made applicable to the cases of injury suffered in an accident where the injured is left at the will of passers-by who take him to the nearby hospital or medical centre, even, though run by private doctors. In such cases,. the injured had practically no choice and may be in the case of serious injuries, the injured himself may be unconscious. In the present case, however, it will not make any difference because the bus involved in the accident also belongs to the Haryana Government with which the appellant is employed. If, in the present case, the appellant gets any compensation on account of the medical treatment, it is taken that he will not get reimbursement under the service rules the same amount again.

P. W. 3 Dr. M. R, Sapra has categorically stated that the appellant will not be able to drive scooter with the shortening of his log which occurred on account of the accident The shortening of the leg is to the extent of 11/2 and the appellant is required to get prepared special shoes to keep both the legs in the same height. This disability is permanent and the appellant will have a limp in his gait. The appellant will not be able to play games. He will have restricted activity and will not be able to do active field work. With the type of injury suffered, the appellant. is likely to get treatment for pain in future also in the form of pain-killers, apart from the fact that the appellant had spent Rs. 1,100/-so far on the treatment, the expenses to be incurred in future are also to be taken into consideration, The appellant had to undergo two operations and he suffered pain which aspect has also to be taken into consideration A consolidated sum of Rs. 40,000/- would be reasonable compensation for the kind of the injury suffered by the appellant which would also include lose of pay of 13 months which was allowed by the Tribunal as a separate head

In Smt Swaran Kaur v. The New Pyar Bus Pvt Ltd.. Amritsar (1987) 92 PLR 478 : AIR 1988 P & H 17 decided by J. V. Gupta, J., a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was allowed as compensation to a person whose leg had been shortened by 1.5". The earlier decision in Brij Lal v. Mangal Chand Maheshwari (1985) 88 PLR 558, decided by Pritpal Singh, J., was relied upon wherein ; or account of- the shortening of the leg, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was allowed which included future expenses on medicines and permanent disfigurement. Keeping in view the ratio of the decisions, referred to above, a consolidated sum of Rs. 40,000/- is considered reasonable compensation payable to the appellant in the present case.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the interest on the amount at compensation awarded should be from that date of the application and not from the date of the order of the award. There is merit in this contention. There is no reasoixto deny the interest on the amount of compensation to the appellant from the date of the application.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted. The award made by the Tribunal is modified. The appellant is allowed-a sum of Rs. 40,000/- against the respondents who would be liable to pay the same jointly and severally. The appellant will also get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim application i.e. July 13, 1983 till realisation. The appellant will get costs of this, appeal. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 500/-.