AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.N. Sarma, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 3.2.1992 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, Tezpur in MACT Case No. 4/83. Two cases were taken up together for hearing, i.e. (i) MACT Case No. 4/83, and (ii) MACT Case No. 6/83. The brief facts are as follows:
An accident took place on 5.10.1982 at about 7 p.m. at Dipota on the National Highway as a result of which it is claimed that the claimant Smt. Dhankenwari Devi Bhati being a passenger of Matador van a claimant in MACT Case No. 4/83, and the driver of the said van Shri Arjun Singh a claimant in the MACT Case No. 6 of 1983 sustained injuries on their persons. The present claim petition was filed on 9.3.1983. In the claim petition, it is stated inter alia as follows:
Column 11, the nature of injury sustained: Grievous head injury, and an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was claimed as compensation out of which Rs. 20,000/- was claimed for treatment and Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed for other damages.
In Column 22, any other information that maybe necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim petition, it is stated as follows:
Shri Manaram Bauri, the driver of the military vehicle as referred to above, drove the vehicle in a most rash and negligent manner. He appeared to be under the influence of liquor. He dashed his said vehicle against vehicle No. ASD 8683 belonging to M/s. Rajendra Trading Company of Main Road, Tezpur. The injured applicant, who is the wife of one of the partners of M/s. Rajendra Trading Co. as before stated was in occupation of the said vehicle No. ABU 8683. The vehicle of the aforesaid firm was heavily damaged and the injured applicant and the driver of the said vehicle were severely injured. The injured applicant had to be rushed to Calcutta where she was kept under treatment for a prolonged period to save her life. The driver of the Military vehicle at the relevant time was the employee of MES, Gharduar.
The written statement was filed on behalf of the Union of India denying the entitlement of the claimant to receive the compensation as claimed. On the pleading the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal.
(1) Whether there is any cause of action in this petition? (2) Whether the accident took place for negligence and rash driving of the driver of the vehicle? (3) Whether the claim is barred? (4) Whether the claimant is entitled to relief? (5) Whether the defence vehicle was taken on duty or not? (6) Whether any other relief/reliefs are the parties entitled to?
For the disposal of the appeal, it is not necessary to go through the other issues save and except issue No. 4 as indicated above. The following witnesses were examined.
Smt. Mohanlal Parik, an employee of Rajendra Trading Co. Ltd., Tezpur. It is stated by the witness that the Army vehicle dashed with the Matador van from opposite side as a result of which the accident took place. Shri Mohanlal Parik, the P.W. 1 of the claimant is a salesman of M/s. Rajendra Trading Co. Ltd., Tezpur. He deposed inter alia as follows:
Smt. Dhankenwari Devi sustained head injury. I also sustained head injury. The baby was not injured. Smt. Dhankenwari Devi Bhati became unconscious by getting injury on her head....
I did not see any external injury on Smt. Dhankenwari Devi Bhati, she just became unconscious. She was then shifted to Calcutta. He denied the suggestion that Dhankenwari Devi Bhati did not sustain any injury.
P.W. 2 is Shri Arjun Singh. He is driver of the Matador van. He did not say anything regarding the injury of the claimant in the examination-in-chief. In the cross examination, he deposed inter alia as follows:
The wife of Shri Deepchand Bhati sustained injury on her hand. I sustained injury, and my leg was fractured as a result, Smt. Dhankenwari Devi Bhati was shifted to Calcutta and she remained in Calcutta for treatment.
P.W. 3 is Smt. Dhankenwari Devi. She deposed as follows: When the Army vehicle dashed against the Matador van, the accident occurred, I became senseless and shifted to Calcutta where I was hospitalised for treatment. I cannot say after how many days of the occurrence of the accident, I was shifted to Calcutta. I sustained injury on my head. My son Narendra Kumar Bhati, his wife Lalita were with me in Calcutta. "In the cross-examination, it was also put to her that she did not suffer any injury in the accident which she denied. It is not a fact that there are no signs of injuries". It is noted by the Tribunal as follows:
The witness stated everything in quite normal way without giving any scope to judge by the Court that she has lost her memory. Now she has replied to all the questions in normal way without any hesitation. The Tribunal has further observed:
I noticed a little sign of cut mark living on her forehead below the hair.
I cannot say after how many days of accident, I was shifted to Calcutta for treatment. Nor I also cannot say for how many days, I was under treatment in Calcutta. D.W. 4 is Dr. Section Kalita. There is no necessity to discuss his evidence as this Doctor did not say anything relevant at this lady. He only examined the driver.
P.W. 5 is Dr. R.K. Baidya, he is a physician of the Baptist Christian Mission Hospital, Tezpur. He deposed inter alia as follows:
On 5.10.1982 at about 9 p.m., Smt. Dhankenwari Devi Bhati was admitted in the hospital, for treatment. I found head injury on her. Exbt. 4 is case history maintained at the hospital as regards to injury of-Dhankenwari Bhati.... She was hospitalised in the evening on 5.10.1982 and she was discharged later on. Ext. 5 is advice given by the Christian Mission Hospital, Tezpur. Exbt. 6 is also Case History of Dhankenwari Devi Bhati. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that their records do to show the extent of injury. P.W. 7 is the O/C of Police Outpost Bebejia, Tezpur. He is informed by relatives that at 7 p.m. one Millitary vehicle knocked another Matador van coming from Dhekiajuli and the passengers of the civil car sustained injuries. D.W. 6 is Dr. P.K. Khaklary. He is a doctor of Baptist Christian Mission Hospital. He also exhibited the Exbts. 4, 5 and 6. Exbt. 7 is a Bill for Rs. 293/- from the hospital for attending to Dhankenwari Devi Bhati, D.W. 7 is Dr. Bibhas Chandra Dey, a family physician of Smt. Dhankenwari Devi Bhati. He claims that he accompanied the claimant Smt. Dhankenwari Devi for better treatment to Calcutta Medical Research Institute. He also deposed that claimant subsequently suffered from heart ailment. Exbt. 7 is the discharge certificate from Calcutta Institute.
D.W. 8 is Shri Narendra Kr. Bhatti. He deposed as follows: My mother sustained head injury and as per doctor advice on the following day, she was shifted to Calcutta for better treatment. My mother was treated at Calcutta Medical Research Institute for about 18 days. This witness exhibited Exbts. 12, 13, 14, 15 the air tickets. Curiously enough the air ticket of the doctor was not exhibited but it was claimed that he accompanied the lady: D.W. 9 is Police Sub-Inspector. He deposed that there was an accident but he did not say anything regarding the injury of the persons.
It is not necessary to look at the repositions of the witnesses of the opposite party, as they have not said anything regarding the injury of the lady. The next matter to be looked at are the exhibited documents. The following are the exhibits material with regard to the disposal of the appeal. Exbt. 4 is the case history of the claimant. Ext. 5 is advice given by Baptist Christian Mission Hospital. Ex. 6 is case history. Exbt. 7 is bill of Baptist Christian Mission Hospital, Tezpur for an amount of Rs. 293/-. Exbt. 8 is discharge report from the Calcutta Medical Research Institute. Ex. 9 is prescription. Exbt. 10 is ECG report, Exbt. 11 is prescription. Exbt. 12 is air ticket of Lalita Bhati. Exbt. 13 air ticket of Shri Deep Chand Bhati, Exbt. 14 is air ticket of Rabindra Bhati Exbt. 15 is air ticket of injured Smt. Dhankenwari Bhati, Exbts. 16, 17 to 80 are medicine purchase vouchers, Exbt. 81 photo-copy of assessment order, Exbt. 82 is G.D. Entry, Exbt. 82(4) is the entry made in Baptist Christian Mission Hospital. It shows blood pressure 180/90. The discharge certificate shows that the claimant sustained head injury in a matador accident and advised to go for higher medical treatment. Exbt. 6 the history of this lady during her stay in the Baptist Christian Mission Hospital, also shows that injury was caused and for that she was unconscious. On the next day, the report states as follows:
...Sponge bath given with shop and water. Face, her eyes, hands and both legs were cleaned with soap water. Injury seen in left side face and head, skin off seen in right side chest and slight injury seen on the left knee. Restless during bath but after bath, the patient sleeping well. Exbt. 6 there is endorsement by the doctor which is as follows:
External injury not noticed. Patient is conscious but reply to the questions are faulty but patient regained consciousness later on. It was stated that no injury was detected by doctors in the Baptist Mission Hospital on the very day and it was the request of the relative that she was allowed to be taken to Calcutta for treatment.
The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety holding as follows: I, therefore, find no evidence on record to hold that claimant Dhankenwari Devi sustained any serious injuries due to the accident leaving aside the question of her in anyway becoming permanently disabled.
Hence this appeal. Two points arise for determination:
(1) What is the extent of injury suffered by the claimant?
(2) What will be the just compensation to the claimant?
On perusal of the materials on record it is seen and I hold that the claimant suffered some minor injuries and had a shock. Her subsequent shifting to Calcutta and treatment there in no way be connected with the accident. It is a remote one and for that she is not entitled to any compensation. No relation has been established that the treatment in Calcutta was a necessity because of the accident.
u/s 110B of the M.V. Act, 1939 (as is applicable to the case in hand) the Tribunal is to assess the just compensation. This right to get compensation flows from the law of tort. The law of tort prevents hurting one another. All torts consist of violation of a right in the plaintiff. Tort law, therefore, is primarily evolved to compensate the injure by compelling the wrong-doer to pay for the damage done. The purpose of the law of torts is to adjust to losses and after compensation for injuries by one person, as a result of the conduct of another. The loss of hypothesis may have already occurred, and whatever benefit might be derived from repairing, the fortunes of one person is exactly offset by the harm caused through taking that amount away from another.
It should be borne in mind that the Tribunal on consideration of the facts and circumstances must assess the compensation which is just. The Tribunal is not place for lottery to try luck or a casino for gambling. No doubt the claimant suffered some injury because of the accident; but she wanted to have a huge compensation. The claimant relied on the documentary and oral evidence regarding head injury of Dr. Bibhash Chandra Ray that she sustained severe head injuries and because of that she fell unconscious. But this witness was rightly disbelieved by the learned Tribunal, as his deposition is not supported by the documents of hospital.
On the perusal of the documentary evidence and also discussion made above, it is found that the claimant sustained minor injuries as will be evident from the report of the Baptist Christian Mission Hospital which are quoted above and for that definitely she is not entitled to the amount of compensation as claimed, but is entitled to some compensation. The dismissal of the claim as a whole is erroneous both in law and fact.
In that view of the matter and for the ends of justice, I hold that award of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) as compensation will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I grant Rs. 5,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim petition.
I heard Mr. I.C. Khetri, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chinmoy Choudhury, learned Counsel for the respondents. The amount shall be paid within a period of 3 (three) months before the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above.