AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident.
Appellant was injured in a road accident on 1.12.1979, involving car bearing No. DEA-2695.
Since enhancement of compensation is prayed for and there are no cross objections, I would only be noting facts pertaining to the compensation assessed by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant.
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,05,135.75 to the appellant. Break up is as under:
(a) Loss of income during laid off period : Rs. 7,135.75 (b) Conveyance Expenses : Rs. 8,000/- (c) Future conveyance expenses : Rs. 20,000/- (d) Mental Shock, agony, special diet : Rs. 50,000/- (e) Loss of future prospects : Rs. 20,000/- ------------------- Total : Rs. 1,05,135.75 -------------------
Age of the appellant as on the date of accident was 29 years. He was working as a Lecturer (Architecture) in Aryabhat Polytechnic, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1500/- per month at the time of accident.
On account of injuries sustained, appellant suffered a compound fracture of neck of the right femur joint. The said fracture mal-united resulting in shortening of the right lower limb of appellant by 1 1/2 inch.
Period of treatment spreads over different dates, spanning 2 years.
I have before me the evidence of appellant being admitted for surgery twice. Once, 16 days after the accident and the other nearly 2 years thereafter. There are 2 spells of hospitalization spreading over 4 months and 23 days respectively. I have also before me the statement of appellant that he remained under follow up treatment.
There is also evidence to show that leg of the appellant never fully recovered. Disability certificate dated 6.4.1988 issued by Safdarjung Hospital records that the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 58%. Dr. B.K. Dhawan who had treated the appellant in his testimony as PW-3 had also deposed that appellant suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 40%. I also have before me the statement of the appellant that he cannot run or squat on his haunches.
Learned Counsel for the appellant challenges the quantum on two counts. One, that the award under the heads ''loss of salary for laid off period'' and ''loss of future prospects'' is contrary to evidence led by the appellant.
While recompensing appellant for ''loss of salary for laid off period'', learned Tribunal has taken note of only first spell of his hospitalization. Tribunal has ignored that the appellant was again hospitalized for second surgery on 10.11.1981 and was discharged on 2.12.1981. I agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant needs to be recompensed for loss of salary during second spell of hospitalization. There is no evidence to show salary of appellant in November 1981. However, in the interest of justice, I award a further compensation of Rs. 1,426.75/- under the head ''loss of salary during laid off period''.
Future prospects of the appellant can be gauged from following documents:
Ex. PW-8/3 and Ex. PW-8/4: These are the letters issued by the Netherland Government evidencing that the appellant was offered fellowship by the Netherland Government.
Ex. PW-8/5: This letter evidences that appellant was offered a job as architect from Mauritius Government at a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month.
However, because of injury sustained in the said accident, appellant was not physically fit to accept the said offers. Thus, there can be no doubt that said accident has badly marred the future prospects of the appellant. I enhance compensation under the head ''loss of future prospects'' from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-.
From the evidence led by the appellant, it is apparent that in the instant case there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering as also loss of enjoyment of life. I note that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head ''Mental Shock, Agony and Special Diet'' includes compensation for pain and suffering also. I further note that compensation under the head ''Loss of Enjoyment of Life'' has been totally denied by the Tribunal.
Award under pain and suffering compensates an injured person for the physical discomfort and emotional response to the sensation of pain caused by the injury itself. Pain is physical; suffering is emotional. While pain is the physiological response to certain stimuli, suffering is psychological or emotional response to pain.
There cannot be an absolute measure to determine compensation for pain and suffering but, some guidance can be had from the extent of injury and the period of hospitalization coupled with the disability suffered.
Noting that after the accident appellant was operated upon twice as also the fact that he remained under treatment for a intermittent period of 2 years, I consider it fair and reasonable to enhance the compensation under the head ''mental shock, agony and special diet'' from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 70,000/-. I note that compensation is enhanced under this head to adequately recompense the appellant for pain and suffering undergone by the appellant on account of said accident.
Award for loss of enjoyment of life compensates for the limitation, resulting from the defendant''s negligence, on the injured person''s ability to participate in and derive pleasure from the normal activities of daily life, or the individual''s inability to pursue his talents, recreational interests, hobbies or avocations. Thus, in essence, compensation for loss of expectation of life compensates an injured person for loss of quality of life or the value of life itself.
No amount of money can recompense a person the loss of enjoyment of pleasures of life. Every disability takes away some pleasure of life or the other.
Where a leg gets immobilized, a person suffers various kinds of loss of pleasures of life. Free movement would be one.
On account of loss of amenities and enjoyment of the pleasures of life, noting the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, I award him compensation in sum of Rs. 20,000/-.
Thus, total compensation payable is as follows:
(a) Loss of income during laid off period : Rs. 8,635.75 (b) Conveyance Expenses : Rs. 8,000/- (c) Future conveyance expenses : Rs. 20,000/- (d) Mental Shock, agony, special diet : Rs. 70,000/- (e) Loss of future prospects : Rs. 50,000/- (f) Loss of enjoyment of life : Rs. 20,000/- ------------------ Total Rs. 1,76,635.75 ------------------
Tribunal has awarded compensation in sum of Rs. 1,05,135.75. Thus, compensation stands enhanced by a sum of Rs. 71,500/-.
The enhanced compensation in sum of Rs. 71,500/- shall be paid to the appellant together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from date of claim petition till realization.
Compensation would be payable by the respondents on whom the liability has been fastened under the award.
No costs.