IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.: 301 of 2002 Date of decision : 29.10.2009 Pritma Devi. …Appellant Versus HRTC and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This appeal by the claimant has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded to her. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was travelling in a bus belonging to HRTC, which met with an accident on 2.12.1995. It is not disputed that the petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident. She was in fact admitted in the IGMC, Shimla from 3rd December, 1995 till her discharge on 18th December, 1995. She was diagnosed as having suffered injuries on account of a road side accident. She was treated in the hospital and her discharge summary had been exhibited as Ext.PB. Her case summary had been exhibited as Ext.PC which shows that the appellant suffered fracture of the ribs and lacerated wound on the face. This lacerated wound got infected and stitches were removed and secondly suturing was also removed on 12th December, 1995. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Thereafter, she was discharged on 18th December, 1995. The discharge summary further shows that the petitioner thereafter visited the hospital on 19th February, 2nd March, 16th May and 19th June, 1996. On 19th June, 1996 the doctor noted that all is well. Till 19th June, 1996 she was undergoing some treatment or the other. Ms. Salochna Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the learned tribunal has gravely erred in awarding lump- sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- and should have been awarded compensation under different head. She also argues that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of future income and has granted nothing on this account. A perusal of the award of the learned Tribunal shows that the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/- as lump-sum compensation for pain, suffering, shock and also for loss of future income and Rs.1500/- for her lay off for a period of three months as a result of injuries suffered in the accident, Rs.2500/- on account of medical expenses and Rs.1000/- for attendant charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been awarded compensation under different heads. She has been granted compensation under different heads. Having said so, I find that the award is conservative to say the least. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation should have taken into consideration practical aspects of the matter. Undoubtedly, the petitioner remained in hospital from 3rd December, 1995 till her discharge on 18th December, 1995. She 3 kept coming back for treatment. At least for a period of three months as held by the learned trial Court itself she was unable to work. The trial Court has awarded Rs.1500/- on account of pecuniary loss. This is extremely low. Even if the petitioner is a house wife and one cannot lose sight of the fact that she belongs to an agricultural society where women do agricultural work in addition to house work. Her contribution to the family, taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1995 cannot be assessed at less than Rs.2000/- per month and therefore, compensation on account of loss of income for three months is assessed at Rs.6,000/-. The petitioner remained in hospital for 15 days. She was prescribed a large number of medicines. Persons like the petitioner do not keep the records of all the medicines purchased by them. From the discharge summary it is apparent that the petitioner was prescribed medicines for more than six months. No doubt the petitioner has not produced any receipts for the medicines purchased by her but even taking a conservative view of the matter and keeping in view the length of treatment it would not be unjust to assess the medical expenses at Rs.5,000/-. The claimant has been awarded only Rs.1000/- as attendant charges. The claimant was hospitalized for 15 days. In a Government hospital a patient requires at least two attendants and the attendant expenses including the expenses of their transportation from the village to the hospital and boarding and lodging in the hospital itself. Taking all these factors into 4 consideration at least Rs.100/- per day must have been spent on each of the attendants and therefore, Rs.3000/- is awarded on account of attendant charges for the period of hospitalization. The petitioner has not been awarded anything under the head of transportation charges. In fact the petitioner has failed to lead proper evidence in this regard. But this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner belongs to village Besri which is near Rampur. She was brought to Shimla and thereafter went back to Rampur then again came to Shimla on three occasions for her treatment. On some of the occasions she may have come alongwith her attendants. She is accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- as transportation charges. As far as the claim for loss of future income is concerned, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner. From the medical record produced by the petitioner herself it is apparent that on 19th June, 1996 the doctor noted that all is well; meaning thereby that the petitioner had fully recovered. The petitioner claims that she cannot work as before but this is not supported by any medical evidence. In cross-examination the petitioner has admitted that it is correct that disability certificate was not issued to her since the doctor was of the opinion that she has not suffered any disability. Next comes the question of the amount to be awarded for pains and sufferings. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-, which in my opinion is just and reasonable. The claimant, therefore, held is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.37,000/-. The award of the learned tribunal is 5 accordingly modified and the award is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.37,000/-. The claimant on this amount is also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The HRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the Registry of this Court within 12 weeks from today. The amount be released in favour of the claimant by remitting it to her bank account after she furnishes the details of her bank account. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 29th October, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.