Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Kamal Singh and Others

Hasnain Massodi, J.—The appellant sustained serious injuries on 23rd December, 1996, when vehicle (Mini Bus) No. JK02E-0149 in

which the appellant was travelling met with an accident at Nagrota, Jammu. The appellant filed claim petition registered as No. 460/Claims before

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu. The Tribunal passed an award on 31st December, 2002 and assessed Rs. 25, 000/- as compensation

payable to the appellant on account of medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.

The appellant not satisfied with the compensation assessed, has filed instant Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal. The appellant is aggrieved of the

award on the grounds that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence brought on the file in right perspective, ignored statement of Dr. Anil

Gupta, as regards the nature of injuries suffered and medical expenses incurred by the appellant. The appellant is said to have completely ignored

to grant any compensation on account of expenses incurred on transportation, special diet, on arranging services of attendant, and on account of

loss of expectations of life. The Tribunal is said to have ignored and brushed aside the evidence brought on the file. It is pleaded that the appellant

after the vehicular accident has lost his job and because of accident he is not in a position to pursue the activities that the appellant pursued before

the accident.

I have gone through the memoranda of appeal and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Dr Anil Gupta examined by the appellant has stated before the Tribunal that the appellant had suffered fracture in both the bones of the right leg

and due to accident there was stiffness in right ankle and knee movement. According to Dr. Anil Gupta, the appellant had suffered 5% disability.

This is also evident from Certificate EXPW-AG recorded by the witness on examination of the appellant. The witness has further testified that the

appellant shall have a permanent limp, would not be in a position to serve in a belt force and further that the appellant shall have to survive with

pain for a long long time. The appellant in his statement has claimed to have been hospitalised for two days and thereafter to have been an

immobilised for four months, as the right leg of the appellant was plastered and the appellant forced to stay at his place during the said period. The

appellant has further deposed that an amount of rupees ten/ twelve thousand was spent on medical treatment and that because of the accident he

was no more in a position to lift heavy weight or to join the belt force - the dream he had cherished since long. The respondents did not adduce

any evidence to controvert or rebut the evidence adduced by the appellant. The Tribunal on going through the evidence, awarded an amount of Rs.

5,000/- on account of medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of

amenities of life.

The Tribunal in terms of Section 168 Motor Vehicles Act is required to assess ""just compensation"" payable to the claimant. The Tribunal in

order to workout the just compensation has to take a realistic view of the loss suffered and expenditure incurred by the victim of the vehicular

accident. Though the Tribunal is not to entertain an exaggerated claim, so as to make it a windfall for the claimant, yet the Tribunal is not expected

to ignore a genuine and reasonable claim, more so, when there is no evidence to refute the claim set up and the evidence brought on the record to

sustain such claim.

In the present case, the appellant was fair enough to concede that he remained as an indoor patient in the hospital for only two days but was

confined to bed for next four months. The appellant's statement finds support from the statement of his witness Dr. Anil Gutpa who giving details of

the injuries suffered by the appellant has testified that the appellant suffered fracture in both the bones of the right leg and is to survive with stiffness

in right ankle and knee movement.

It sounds reasonable that the appellant was forced to stay home and had to incur expenditure on his medical treatment during the period he was

not in a position to pursue his normal activities. The Tribunal was not justified in awarding a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of medical

expenses when the evidence on the file indicated that the expenses incurred on medical treatment ranged between ten thousand to twelve thousand.

Again, the compensation as assessed on account of pain and suffering does not correspond to the pain that the appellant is to be presumed to have

suffered during four long months. The appellant was confined to bed and not in a position to move out of his residence. The appellant admittedly

has suffered a 5% disability and has to live with a permanent limp his whole life and a number of job opportunities particularly in police, home

guard, paramilitary forces and armed forces are because of accident now beyond reach of the appellant. The appellant is not the same person after

the accident as he is no more in a position to pursue his normal activities. The appellant cannot carry heavy weight and cannot take up job or work

that he would otherwise be in a position to perform. The Tribunal has ignored all these aspects while assessing compensation payable to the

appellant on account of the vehicular accident in question.

For the reasons discussed, the appeal is allowed and the award is modified as under:-

The respondent - Insurance Company held by the Tribunal is under an obligation to indemnify the respondents 1 and 2 and shall pay an amount

of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant with the following break-up :-

Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-

Pain and suffering -Rs. 25,000/- and

Loss of amenities of life/Expectations of life -Rs. 65,000/-

Total -Rs. 1,00,000/-

The conditions subject to which the compensation was accorded by the Tribunal and the rate of interest are left unaltered. The appeal is disposed

of accordingly.