Suresh Chand Sharma v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The Award impugned before this Court is the Award dated 29.09.2009 by which compensation in the sum of Rs.8,95,000/has been awarded in favour of the petitioner.

2. This clam petition has been preferred under Section 166 of 2011:DHC:3663 the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA Act). The claimant is the victim himself; he had suffered injuries in an accident which had occurred on 31.12.2006. Petitioner was driving his truck when another truck hit him from the opposite side and pursuant to this collision the petitioner sustained serious injuries. Offending vehicle was admittedly insured with respondent No.3; it was owned by respondent No.2; the insurance policy was also admittedly valid on the date of the accident. Three issues had been framed. The petitioner had examined five witnesses in his evidence. No evidence was led by the respondents. The aforenoted awarded amount was accordingly accorded.

3. In appeal, it has been contended by the petitioner/claimant that he is entitled for the enhancement of the award amount as the Tribunal has only considered his loss of income for a period of four months; this is contrary to the documentary evidence which shows that the petitioner was confined to bed for a longer period i.e. for 16 months from the date of the accident; the future prospects have also been ignored; non-pecuniary damages have also not been considered in the correct perspective. No compensation has also been awarded for the loss of future treatment when there was cogent evidence to the said effect and this is evident from the version of PW[2]. The Award suffers from the aforenoted infirmities; the Award is liable to be enhanced.

4. Arguments have been rebutted. It is pointed out that the impugned Award suffers from no infirmity and all the arguments urged before this Court are unsupported by any evidence.

5. The salary of the petitioner in the sum of Rs.5,000/- per month was proved from the salary certificate Ex.PW3/A which was proved in the version of the PW[3]. Monthly income was thus assessed as Rs.5,000/-. The indoor treatment of the patient was admittedly between 01.01.2007 to 28.01.2007; however, keeping in view, the nature of the injuries which were described by PW[2] Dr. V.K. Jain which included a compound fracture dislocation right ankle; compound comminuted fracture both bones left leg; facture right medical maelleous; a period of 4 months was taken into consideration to hold that during this period the petitioner was not able to carry out his normal duties; the loss of income was assessed for a period of four months. PW[2] the doctor has also admitted that the petitioner had remained admitted in the hospital upto 28.01.2007; he had further stated that the treatment of the petitioner is still going on but there was no evidence forthcoming about the aforenoted treatment. Even before this Court, on a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, he concedes that no documentary evidence about the future treatment meted out to the petitioner has been placed on record. The bills for the purchase of medicines were lastly up to March 2007, but the nature of the medicines mentioned in the cash memos are not indicative of any special treatment being meted out to the petitioner by virtue of which his normal capacity was hampered. Although PW[2] had stated that the future surgery of the patient which is required as a follow-up and it would cost approximately Rs.25,000/- but as noted supra even before this Court the appellant has admitted that there is no evidence whatsoever on this count. In these circumstances claim for future treatment had not been awarded; loss of income for a period of[4] months was also in conformity with the documentary evidence. 6 PW[5] had produced the disability certificate of the petitioner which stated that the petitioner has suffered 60% disability qua the entire body; patient had suffered intercondyler fracture left with fracture both bones left leg malunited with stiff knee Rom (0- 80 degree) with shortening of 2 CM and compound fracture dislocation right ankle with deformity of ankle with disuse atrophy; 60% disability was permanent in nature. The age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 37 years; multiplier of 16 was added to the admitted income of ` 5,000/- per month; taking into account the 60% disability; the compensation awarded was as follows:- `5,000/-X12X16X60/100= `5,76,000/- 7 This computation has considered the disability of 60% suffered by the victim to which the appropriate multiplier has been added.

8 In JT 2010 (13) SC 38 Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another relying upon the law relating to compensation awarded in the case of permanent disability as held in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. JT 2010 (10) SC 254 and Yadava Kumar Vs. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. JT 2010 (9) SC 91 the formula for assessment of compensation payable in a case of permanent disability had been laid down with reference to three illustrations as contained in para 14 of the said judgment.

9 In the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 9 SCC 338 Grifan Vs. Sarbjeet Singh & Others where the petitioner had suffered 80% disability; overall disability being 50%; income of the deceased being `4,000/- per month which would have risen further if the appellant had not suffered from this injury at the age of 45 years, on this aspect an amount of `2 lacs was awarded.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. JULY 22, 2011 neelam