IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No.323/2004 Date of Decision :14th July,2008. Rakesh Kumar. …Appellant. Versus: Ram Prakash Gupta, and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr.T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. . For Respondent- 1. Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-2. Mr.A.K.Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-3. Mr.K.B.Khajuria, Advocate. For Respondent-4. Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Advocarte. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the award dated 1st June, 2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in M.A.C. Case No.9 of 2002 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. Ram Parkash Gupta and others awarding a sum of Rs.11,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. As per the case of the claimant/appellant, on 26th October, 2001 he was travelling in a scooter being driven by Sh. Ram Lal-respondent No.3 (scooter No. HP-36-0960) and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 upon reaching Lakhanpur National Highway, a car bearing registration No. HP-31-2624, being driven by respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and collided with scooter and due to the accident he sustained multiple injuries and fractured his right leg. Claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur for the grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Tribunal held that respondent No.1, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, was responsible for the accident in question and the claimant sustained injuries as a result of the same. Based on the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation: 1. Monthly Income Rs.2,400/- 2. For Pain and Suffering Rs.3,000/- 3. Medical Bills. Rs.5,520/- Total Rs.10,920/- or say Rs.11,000/- The vehicle was insured and neither the owner nor the Insurance Company has challenged the finding of the Tribunal and the present appeal for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the claimant only. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 3 Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-2) , Medical Officer, Orthopaedic Surgeon, District Hospital, Bilaspur has proved that claimant was admitted in the Orthopaedics wing of District Hospital on 26th October, 2001 for the treatment of compound fracture of both the bones of the right leg and was discharged on 13th November, 2001. As Member of the Medical Board he had found the appellant to have “union of fracture of both bones with stiffness of knee” and disability of 0.5% which was of temporary character. He proved the disability certificate Ext.PW-2/A issued by him. It is evident that the appellant was admitted in the hospital from 26th October, 2001 up to 13th November, 2001 where he was given medical treatment for fracture of both bones of the right leg and was having stiffness on the knee with disability of 0.5%. Claimant-Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) has deposed that he was employed as a mason and had incurred an expenses of Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment and still suffers from the ailment. He has further deposed that the injury has impaired his working capacity and he cannot work either as a mason or as a labourer as he cannot lift heavy material. He has proved the medical bills Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-25. Importantly, there is no cross-examination on these points at all. The appellant is a matriculate which is evident from the certificate (Ext.PC) and is a permanent resident of village Bandla, Tehsil 4 Sadar, District Bilsapur. His deposition to this extent goes unrebutted. This court in Sheela Kaundal Vs. Dhani Ram and others , 2007 ACJ 956 has held as under: “The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitle the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as (i) loss of earnings; (ii) expenses on treatment which include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges, etc.; (iii) loss or diminution in the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body; and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non pecuniary but all have to be assessed in rupees and paise. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the 5 compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be only token damages.” The aforesaid principles need to be applied to the present case. It is true that the total amount of medical bills (Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-25) comes to Rs. 5,520/- for which the compensation has been awarded. But, however, it is evident from the award that no compensation has been awarded for the other expenses incurred by the claimants’ attendants to visit the hospital from the village to look after him. Even where no medical bills were produced and the claimant was admitted in the hospital for treatment for 30 days, in Sheela Kaundal Vs. Dhani Ram and others, 2007 ACJ 956, this court awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses. Appellants unrebutted statement is that he incurred an expense of Rs. 50,000/- Accordingly, in my considered view, since the appellant was admitted in the hospital for more than 18 days, a sum of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.5,520/- ought to have been awarded as compensation to the appellant under the head of medical expenses and transportation charges. 6 With regard to the monitory loss of income and the estimated future income, it be noted that the appellant is a matriculate. He has stated that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month at the time of the accident and due to the same he cannot perform the same duty which he had been performing earlier. At the time of the accident he was 20 years of age. There is no cross-examination on this point at all. However, it is equally true that no documentary evidence has been led to substantiate this plea. Be that as it may be, the trial Court has assessed his income on the basis of the casual labourer working in P.W.D. getting Rs. 80/- per day. The fact that the appellant was working as a mason is not disputed. Therefore, the income assessed by the Tribunal to my mind is on the lower side and considering the daily wages of the mason to be Rs.150/- in the year 2001, his monthly income can be safely assessed at Rs.4500/- per month. It has come in evidence that the claimant suffered from multiple fractures on both the bones of his right leg and the plaster had been applied on the same. In order to obtain full recovery it can safely be presumed that the appellant was confined to bed for a period of six months. Even as per the disability certificate (Ext.PW- 2/A) the claimant has been advised rest for a period of six months. Thus, the loss of income can safely be computed to be Rs.4,500/- x 6= Rs.27,000/- Even under the head of pain and suffering, only a sum of Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded which in my view is far 7 on the lesser side and keeping in view the nature of the injury and that the claimant was confined to bed, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. This also includes the compensation for the discomfort and loss of enjoyment of life due to the accident. The appellant has clearly stated that due to the injury he cannot lift heavy material and it is evident that his day today activities have also been adversely affected. In view of the above discussions the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified and the appellant shall be entitled to the following compensation: 1. Compensation for medical expenses: Rs. 10,000-00 (Instead of Rs.5,520/-) 2. Compensation for Pain and Suffering: Rs. 25,000-00 (Instead of Rs.3,000/-) 3. Compensation for loss of Income: Rs.27,000-00 (Instead of Rs.2,400/-) Total: Rs.62,000-00 The appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the petition till the date of deposit as has already been awarded by the tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 14, 2008(R)