Shri Rai Singh vs Shri Taj Mohammad and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, proxy counsel for Mr. Pradeep Gaur appears on advance notice. Both the counsel for the parties state that the matter may be taken up for final disposal. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have not been served. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. I do not feel any necessity of directing notice upon them as notice upon them would unnecessarily delay disposal of the present appeal. In the present appeal, the appellant has only claimed enhancement in the compensation amount and the claim petition was duly contested by the insurance company before the Tribunal. Therefore, notice on the respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with.

By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement in the compensation amount over and above the amount of Rs. 12,744/- awarded by the Tribunal.

To deal with the contentions raised by the appellant, it would be appropriate to give brief summary of the facts as under:

On 15.5.2005, the appellant Mr. Rai Singh was travelling in a car bearing registration No. DL-8C/G-4366 and when he reached GTK Road, the driver of the Canter bearing registration No. UP-14M-5585, which was moving ahead of their vehicle all of a sudden applied emergency brakes, as a result of which the car in which the appellant was travelling rammed into the Canter with a great force due to which the appellant sustained serious injuries.

Mr. Manish Maini, counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has suffered serious facial injuries. Counsel thus contends that a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, although the appellant would continue to suffer rest of his life due to permanent disfigurement of his face. Counsel further contends that the Tribunal has granted lower compensation by taking an irrational and illogical view, that since the claimant was a grown up man, therefore, scars should not bother him much. Counsel contends that even the grown up man face embarrassment or humiliation in the society due to scars on his face and disfigurement. Counsel further contends that even towards the pain and sufferings, the Tribunal has granted small amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Counsel thus contends that enhancement may be made under these two heads of compensation.

On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey counsel for the respondent insurance company, vehemently refutes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Pandey contends that there was no permanent disability suffered by the appellant as the appellant has suffered superficial injury on his face and therefore, no fault can be found with the findings given by the Tribunal. Counsel for the respondent thus contends that the Tribunal has granted adequate, fair and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The appellant has suffered serious injuries on his face. The appellant was initially taken to Sushruth Trauma Center, from where he was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Although, he was discharged from Jaipur Golden Hospital on the same day but he had been visiting the hospital repeatedly for his continuous medical treatment. The Tribunal in para 11 of the impugned award has observed that although the appellant was discharged on the same date but he did suffer injuries specially on his face and as a result of which must have suffered great inconvenience and pain during the entire process of his medical treatment.

In para 13 of the award, the Tribunal has further observed that the appellant has suffered facial injuries and scars on his face which would remain for the rest of his life. Once the said findings of permanent disfigurement of the face are established, I do not find any justification for the Tribunal to have observed that scars should not bother him since he was a grown up man. At the time of the accident the appellant was 31 years of age and he would continue to suffer for the rest of his life due to disfigurement of his face. I, therefore, do not find that award of Rs. 5,000/- is adequate amount of compensation for the kind of facial injuries suffered by the appellant due to which his face has been disfigured. I enhance the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Let the differential amount be paid by the respondent No. 3 to the appellant along with up-to-date interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

With these directions, the appeal is allowed.