AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amount of Compensation Claimed:
a. Transportation to hospital:
b. Medical expenditure:
c. Extra nourishment:
d. Pain and sufferings:
e. Food & Accommodation:
f. Loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life:
g. Further partial disability (disfigurement of
face/legs/teeth and after accident the claimant has
suffer loss of vision because of which she has
started wearing spectacles after the accident.):
h. Loss of marriage prospectus (sic prospects):-
i. Attendant charge(Rs.5000 x 12)
j. Future medical expenses;
k. For general charges:-
l. Compensation for the loss of earning power
(during the period of continuing disability)
Rs.13,500 x 12 months: Rs.1,62,000/-
-1/31,62,000-54000
Grand Total:","Rs.1000/-
Rs.1,44,463/-
Rs.50,000/-
Rs.2,00,000/-
Rs.60,000/-
Rs.3,00,000/-
Rs.6,00,000/-
Rs.2,00,000/-
Rs.60,000/-
Rs.7,00,000/-
Rs.1,08,000/-Rs.24,23,463/-
Rs.24,23,463/-
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.",
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:",
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;,
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.,
(iii) Future medical expenses.,
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages),
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.",
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).,
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).,
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury,",
where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the",
heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of",
amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.,
Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of,
actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expensesâ€"Item (iii)â€"depends upon,
specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damagesâ€"Items (iv), (v)",
and (vi)â€"involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability",
suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain,
necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future",
earnings on account of permanent disabilityâ€"Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case.â€,
In Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company limited (2011) 10 SCC 683 the Supreme Court examined a claim for compensation under,
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for permanent partial disablement and held:",
“11. The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Sometimes they can be measured in terms of money but,
most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and",
care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term “compensation†used in Section 166 of the Motor",
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Actâ€) would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount",
likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident.â€,
x x x x x x x,
“18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC",
(Cri) 1258 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153] and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ),
164] must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of,
accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should",
always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his",
inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.â€",
The Claims Tribunal was of the opinion that the present case was a case of “routine personal injury†as there had been considerable,
improvement in the condition of the claimant and therefore only entitled to:-,
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.",
(ii) (a) loss of earning during the period of treatment.,
(iii) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.",
For treatment and medical expenses the Claims Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.1,43,059.43 tabulating the entire medical bills and invoices",
submitted by the claimant for her treatment at the Central Referral Manipal Hospital, including expenditure made for medicines at Jimini Enterprise",
and Sunshine Dental Care. The claimant has no issue with regard to the quantum of compensation granted for treatment and medical expenses.,
An amount of Rs.1000/- was awarded towards transportation cost and Rs.50,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses including attendant and extra",
nourishment charges under the same head. The claimant is not satisfied with the amount of compensation under these subheads.,
The Claims Tribunal also noted that the claimant has been “seriously/grievously injured†and accordingly awarded Rs. 2 lakhs towards,
pain, suffering and trauma. This was the full amount of compensation sought by the claimant and therefore, she has no grievance under this head.",
For the loss of earning during the period of treatment the Claims Tribunal considered that the claimant was a teacher in a private school earning a,
monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-. To that further amount of Rs.3,500/- per month and Rs.5,500/- per mensem were also considered as her earnings from",
giving tuitions to students. Therefore, the claimants monthly income was calculated as Rs.13,500/-. The Claims Tribunal came to a finding that due to",
the serious/grievous injuries sustained by the claimant it was possible that she could not resume work for a period of one year. Accordingly, an amount",
of Rs.1,62,000/- (Rs.13,500 x 12) was arrived at, as the claimant’s loss of earning during period of treatment. The claimant also does not have any",
grievance on this count. This is because although in the claim petition she had herself deducted 1/3 of the amount and claimed only Rs.1,08,000/- the",
Claims Tribunal awarded the entire amount.,
The claimant is aggrieved by the fact that although the Claims Tribunal had come to a finding that the injuries sustained by the claimant due to the,
accident were “serious/grievous†in nature it went on to hold that it was a case of “routine personal injury†and by holding so failed to,
award compensation under the other heads as per paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra).,
Under the head loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life the claimant had claimed an amount of Rs.6 lakhs towards further partial disability,
(disfigurement of face/legs/teeth and loss of vision because of which the claimant had to wear spectacles after the accident). An amount of Rs.7,
lakhs was claimed as future medical expenses. A further amount of Rs.2 lakhs was claimed for loss of prospect of marriage. None of the above,
claims were granted by the Claims Tribunal as it held that this was a case of “routine personal injuryâ€.,
As held by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra) the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 makes it clear that the award must be just,",
which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object",
of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable",
manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some",
conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury,",
but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability",
to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have",
earned.,
The claimant in her evidence on affidavit has deposed that she had sustained multiple grievous injuries. According to the claimant she sustained,
injuries on her face including superficial laceration over left side of forehead, laceration over upper lip and laceration over mucosal lip. She also",
suffered a broken tooth. The claimant also claimed that she suffered polytrauma, pelvic fracture, bladder injury/rupture, fracture of the inferior and",
superior pubic rami on left side with inferior displacement of the pubic bone and lacerated kidney. She further claimed that NCCT of the brain,
revealed she suffered haemorrhage which was managed by a neurosurgery team. During her cross-examination the claimant admitted that she had,
not filed any disability certificate from the concerned doctor or from the social welfare department to show the percentage of disability on her due to,
the accident.,
Dr. S.K. Dewan (C.W.5) deposed that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 11.3.2016 and discharged on 11.4.2016. According to him the,
claimant had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of pelvic bone, injury on her urinary bladder, injury and laceration of kidney. She had also",
suffered some abrasion on her face. Dr. S.K. Dewan opined that the injuries were grievous in nature. He stated that even after her discharge, the",
claimant regularly visited him for clinical consultation and that she reportedly had some problems squatting, crossing her legs and standing. He stated",
that the claimant was still under medical review and had made considerable improvement in her movements. In cross-examination he deposed that he,
had not issued any disability certificate to her. Exhibit-1 is the certificate issued by Dr. S.K. Dewan which certifies that the claimant had admitted to,
the hospital with RTA and sustained fracture of both superior and inferior rami with extra peritoneal bladder rupture with lacerated kidney. According,
to the certificate the claimant had recovered but at the time of examination she had difficulty in standing, squatting and sitting crossed legged which",
condition was attributable to the fracture.,
The discharge summary dated 11.04.2016 from the Central Referral Hospital (exhibit-4) corroborates the aforesaid facts.,
The question which falls for consideration is whether the injuries suffered by the claimant was “routine personal injury†or “serious,
injury†entitling the claimant to the full compensation for personal injury as per paragraph 6 of Raj Kumar (supra).,
In Afnees vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 13 SCC 119 the Supreme Court held:",
“13. The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Sometimes they can be measured in terms of money but,
most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care",
is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term “compensation†used in Section 166 of the Motor",
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Actâ€) would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount",
likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident.â€,
In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 the Supreme Court held:",
“7. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular",
faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed",
that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of",
the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which,
should appear to be just, fair and proper.",
The term “disabilityâ€, as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a",
member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work,
with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled",
to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as",
temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or,
fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.â€",
In Raj Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court held:,
“Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability,
Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being.,
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of",
treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of",
the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease",
to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent,
disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is",
able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to,
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor,
accident injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with",
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities Actâ€, for short). But if any of",
the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be",
permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.,
The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with",
reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of,
the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part",
of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability",
of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the",
extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered,
different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body",
cannot obviously exceed 100%.â€,
The Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 defines “partial disablement†in Section 2(g) which reads:",
““partial disablementâ€, means where the disablement is of a temporary nature, such disablement as reduces the earning capacity of",
a employee in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement, and, where the disablement",
is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces is earning capacity in every employment which he was capable for undertaking at",
that time: provided that every injury specified in Part II of Schedule I shall be deemed to result in permanent partial disablement.â€,
Partial disablement is therefore temporary but reduces the earning capacity of the person in the employment he was engaged at the time of the,
accident. The evidence on record suggests that the claimant was thus temporarily and partially disabled. It was for this reason that the Claims Tribunal,
awarded compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- as loss of earning during the period of treatment. The oral evidence of the claimant corroborated by the",
medical evidence of Dr. S.K. Dewan and the medical reports leads to the inevitable conclusion that the claimant had suffered grievous injury which,
cannot be, under any circumstance, termed as “routine personal injuryâ€. This court is of the view that the injuries so sustained by the claimant",
would amount to partial disability as defined under Section 2(g) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Supreme Court in Afnees (supra) has",
clearly held that in cases involving partial disablement as well the term “compensation†used in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988",
would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care",
necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. It is therefore, important to compute the compensation that must be awarded to",
the claimant under the other heads as per paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra).,
Since there was no permanent disability the claimant is not entitled to compensation under the head “(ii) (b) loss of future earnings on,
account of permanent disability.†Therefore, this court is required to calculate the compensation, if any, payable under three heads i.e. “(iii)",
Future medical expensesâ€; “(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage and “(vi) Loss of expectation of life,
(shortening of normal longevity).†The evidence available under each of these heads shall now be discussed.,
(iii) Future medical expenses,
Except for claiming that she is having difficulty in standing, squatting and sitting crossed leg, the claimant has led no evidence to ascertain the type",
and quantum of future medical expenses she may incur. The discharge summary (exhibit-4) does not prescribe any extensive medical instructions to,
the claimant for the future. The claimant has also not filed any disabilities certificate to gather the extent of disability, although it is certain that she was",
partially disabled. The claimant has not claimed to be permanently disabled. Dr. S.K. Dewan opined that the injuries sustained by the claimant were,
grievous in nature. Although he acknowledged that the claimant had reported having some problems squatting, crossing her legs and standing he did",
not give any opinion as to how long she would take to fully recover as he had deposed that “there has been considerable improvement in her,
movements.†The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra) has held that the award under the head, future medical expenses depends upon specific",
medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Sketchy as it may be, the evidence does suggest that the claimant may need",
further medical treatment if she continues to have problem in sitting, standing and squatting. The Claims Tribunal has held that the injury sustained by",
the claimant was serious and grievous. The claimant had suffered fracture of both superior and inferior rami, extra peritoneal bladder rupture and",
lacerated kidney.,
In Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 the Supreme Court examined a claim for compensation for permanent disability. While computing,
the compensation for future medical treatment the Supreme Court noticed that there was no evidence in this regard but also opined that there can,
hardly be such evidence. In such circumstances, keeping in mind the nature of injuries and other relevant facts the Supreme Court awarded a lump",
sum compensation for future medical expenses.,
In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.25,000/- would be just and reasonable award for future medical expenses of",
the claimant to cover any incidental medical expenses she may incur to resolve her problem of sitting, standing and squatting.",
Loss of marriage prospects.,
In Raj Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court held that assessment of non pecuniary damages like loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of,
marriage) involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury, deprivation, disability suffered",
by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. The claimant was a young 26 years old private school teacher at the time of,
the accident. She suffered serious and grievous injuries due to the accident for no fault of hers. According to the claimant she has suffered,
disfigurement of the face due to the accident. The photographs exhibited by her do reflect disfigurement to a certain extent due to the injuries,
sustained. Besides facial disfigurement, the serious and grievous injury sustained by her including pelvic fracture, bladder rupture, fracture of the",
inferior and superior pubic rami and displacement of the pubic bone may also contribute to her marriage prospects. The evidence suggests that she still,
suffers when she sits, stands or squats. This would also be an additional contribution to her diminished marriage prospects. In the circumstances, this",
court is of the opinion that the claim for loss of marriage prospect is not out of place. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the claimant is",
therefore, awarded under this head.",
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).,
There is no specific medical evidence that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant there would be loss of expectation of life (shortening of,
normal longevity) of the claimant although the claimant had been seriously and grievously injured. Dr. S.K. Dewan had certified and deposed that the,
claimant had recovered. In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that no amount was required to be granted as compensation under this head.",
(iv) towards damages for pain,
suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.","Rs.2,00,000/-
v) towards loss of prospects of
marriage.","Rs.2,00,000/-
vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity),",Nil
Grand total,"Rs. 8,30,059.43/-