Sachin Hans v. Satya Prakash Goyal & Ors.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] vide its judgment dated 04.04.2018 in Petition NO. 76911/2016, by which he was granted a sum of Rs.16,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

2. The appellant [claimant before the Tribunal] was driving a car bearing Registration No. HR-12T-6162 on 21.01.2013 at about 09:45 PM, when it met with an accident involving another car bearing Registration No. HR-20T-5454 [“the offending vehicle”]. According to the appellant, the said vehicle was being driven at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and struck the appellant’s car from behind, causing him to sustain injuries. The appellant thereafter instituted a claim against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, as well as its insurer, arrayed herein as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

3. The Tribunal returned a finding that the appellant’s car had indeed been struck from behind by the offending vehicle and, on that basis, held the appellant entitled to compensation. He was awarded a sum of Rs.16,000/-, being Rs.6,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- for pain, suffering, and trauma.

4. Mr. S.N. Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant, relies upon the appellant’s disability certificate dated 23.02.2015 issued by Guru Govind Singh Government Hospital, which records that the appellant suffered a traumatic compression fracture at L[2] with right lower limb monoparesis [Ex. PW-1/4], and certifies that he has sustained 42% permanent physical disability in relation to his spine and right lower limb. The certificate is signed by Dr. Navneet Rustagi and Dr. Perminder Kaur.

5. The principal contention of Mr. Parashar is that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the appellant’s permanent physical disability, assessed as above, was not attributable to the accident in question, and consequently failed to award any compensation towards loss of income, loss of future earning capacity, or other heads arising from the appellant’s disability.

6. Mr. Parashar and Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 – L&T General Insurance Co. Ltd. [“the Insurance Company”], have taken me through the evidence adduced before the Tribunal.

7. Immediately after the accident on 20.01.2013, the appellant was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, where he remained admitted for one night, and was discharged on 21.01.2013. Extracts of the Medico-Legal Case Sheet [“MLC”] and the discharge card have been placed on record. The MLC notes that the appellant had pain and swelling over the back, was ambulatory, and had tenderness over the L[2] vertebra, though no other neurological injury or BB involvement was observed[1]. The MLC further records that he was experiencing pain and tenderness in the lower spine and classifies his injuries as “grievous”.

8. The discharge card records a diagnosis of a traumatic L[2] vertebral fracture (old), with MRI revealing oedema and indentation of the L[1] vertebra. It further states that, upon clinical examination and investigation, the appellant was diagnosed with compression of the L[2] vertebra without any neurological deficit or BB involvement, and that he was discharged in a satisfactory condition with appropriate advice regarding care and regular follow-up.

9. Dr. Navneet Rustagi, who signed the disability certificate, appeared before the Tribunal as PW-3. He proved the certificate and reiterated its contents, including that the appellant had 42% permanent physical disability in relation to his spine and lower limb. In cross-examination, he stated as follows: “ Prior to issuing the disability certificate an x-ray was performed and the neurological assessment was done. The patient has submitted a copy of discharge summary pertaining to his admission in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. I cannot comment as to since when the person was suffering this disability. On the basis of discharge summary I can say that the disability arose in this case due to injury suffered by the person in a Road Traffic Accident. It is correct that as per the discharge summary, MRI shows old fracture of L[2] vertebra with oedema and indentation of L[1] I am informed that BB refers to “blood-brain barrier”. vertebra. I cannot comment whether this injury could be possible before accident. I cannot admit or deny that the injury which is the cause of permanent disability in this case was suffered by the patient much prior to the accident. I have brought the complete record of the patient. Copy of the assessment proforma is Ex. PW-3/R3-C[1] (OSR - 02 pages). It is wrong to suggest that disability in this case has not been assessed properly.”2

10. On the basis of the above evidence, the Tribunal recorded the following findings:

Emphasis supplied. shop along with his brother under the name & style of Navjyoti Furniture. He also admitted that both he and his brother were income tax assessee and that the ITR for the Assessment Years 2013- 14 and 2014-15 were Ex.PW1/R-3. The bare perusal of Ex.PW1/R-3 reveals that the income of claimant Sachin Hans is increasing steadily and he has not sustained any loss of income in the subsequent years after the accident. Even otherwise, since it is proved that the alleged fracture in his L[2] vertebrae was an old fracture, the disability certificate Ex.PW1/4 has to be ignored.

20. Therefore, in view of the fact that no disability was caused to the petitioner due to accident dated 20.01.2013 and the fact that petitioner did not sustain any loss of income in the subsequent years, no compensation can be granted under this head as well.”

11. Having considered the evidence discussed above, I do not find any infirmity in the Tribunal’s findings on this aspect. The MLC and discharge card issued by Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital both record that the L[2] vertebral fracture and L[1] indentation were old injuries. The MLC specifically notes that the appellant was ambulatory on the day of the accident, and there is nothing in the medical record to indicate that he sustained any fracture due to the accident. The only medical evidence to the contrary pertains to pain and tenderness in the lower spinal region, which is also reflected in the discharge summary.

12. The disability certificate, read together with the testimony of the issuing doctor, also does not advance the appellant’s case. In crossexamination, the medical witness clearly stated that he was unable to comment on the duration of the injury. Although he stated that the disability arose due to an injury suffered in a road traffic accident, he was unable to clarify whether the old L[2] vertebral fracture and the oedema and indentation of the L[1] vertebra, could have pre-dated the accident in question. Most significantly, he could not indicate whether the permanent disability may have been caused by an injury sustained much prior to the accident.