Case: Dixit Kumar &amp; Another Vs. Om Prakash Goel

4. The facts lie in a narrow compass and provide the essential backdrop of the litigation. On 07.08.2002 at about 7.30 a.m. while the claimant Om Prakash Goel was travelling on the pillion of the scooter3 being driven by his son/next friend, Vikas Goel, the Maruti Car referred to hereinabove, being driven rashly and negligently, dashed it from behind, as a result whereof the occupants of the scooter fell down and in the process, the claimant suffered multiple injuries on his head and also sustained fractures. According to the claimant, though for treatment he was taken to the hospital, the injuries sustained by him wholly left him permanently disabled. The claim petition disclosed that at that time, the claimant was running a business in the name of M/s. Shiv Traders at Peeragari, Delhi and was an Income Tax Assessee5. In the written statement filed by the opposite party in the claim proceedings, they denied the accident and pleaded that the claim be dismissed. They stated that a similar claim had been made earlier on the same cause of action which was dismissed and that therefore on that ground alone the claim petition was not maintainable6. Both sides adduced evidence, oral and documentary and the Tribunal returned a finding that the accident did occur due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car and that the claimant Om Prakash Goel had sustained injuries in the same. The Tribunal granted compensation on various heads and in assessing the same, principally took note of the oral and documentary evidence with regard to the physical state of the claimant as a result of the injuries sustained. It took note amongst others of the disability certificateK proved by the doctor concerned who assessed the permanent physical disability of the claimant to the extent of 50% due to post traumatic hemiparasis of the left side of the body. The doctor,2 opined that in the kind of permanent physical disability involved, the patient cannot be cured by medicines or surgery. The Tribunal also took into consideration the testimony of, the son of the claimant to the effect that he (claimant) had been bed ridden and that he had also become 50% mentally retarded following the trauma and the injuries suffered. The Tribunal in addition noted the evidence of, the son of the claimant that half portion of the body of the claimant had become totally paralyzed so much so that he was left in no state to conduct his business in future. The Tribunal thus assessed the functional disability of the claimant to be 100%. On an overall assessment relating to the injuries suffered, the adverse consequences thereof on the physical state, expenses incurred on medical treatment, loss of income, extent of functional disability and the bearing thereof on the earning capacity of the claimant together with the incidental expenses as well as the general damages, it awarded in all Rs. 15,51,030/as compensation to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of institution of the claim petition7. Being aggrieved the opposite party in the claim proceedings preferred appeal before the High Court which reduced the quantum of compensation to Rs. 7,88,150/maintaining however the rate of interest at Rs. 7.5% per annum payable with effect from 25.05.2004. In quantifying the compensation as above, the High Court reiterated that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car but declined to accept that functional disability of the claimant to the extent of 100% had resulted from the permanent physical disability acquired from the injuries sustained by him. The High Court though noted the testimony of, the son of the claimant that he (claimant) had become paralytic on one side thus reducing him to a vegetative state and rendering him 100% functionally disabled, did not accept the said version. The High Court noted the age of the claimant at the relevant time to be 54 years and accepted his monthly income of Rs. 2680/per month as had been fixed by the Tribunal. Proceeding on this premise, the High Court thus reduced the quantum of compensation under various heads and even struck off the award on many counts ofy damages, thus reducing the amount of compensation to Rs.. The notable omission from the heads of compensation granted by the Tribunal apart from the reductions generally made are with regard to compensation on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life as well as loss of recurring inevitable expenses in future. As the calculations would reveal, the High Court substantially reduced the amount of compensation under the heads of loss of income and future earning capacity, loss of enjoyment of amenities of life and attendant charges. It did not take account as well the future medical expenses and prospects of higher earnings in future.

Court's reasoning:
9. On an evaluation of the materials on record, we are of the view that the concurrent finding of the Courts below on the liability of the opposite party/appellants to bear the compensation does not warrant any interference. It is noticeable that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the claimant had suffered 100% functional disability resulting from 50% permanent physical disability is based on evidence on record. It did in our estimate, meticulously analyze all essential aspects correlated to the fall out of such physical state of the claimant and consciously awarded different sums on account of special and general damages as contemplated in law. Significantly, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant to be Rs. 2680/at par with the prevalent minimum wage on the date of the accident though his claim was that he had an earning of Rs. 5000/per month from his running business. In absence of any dispute that the claimant at the time of the accident did have a business in the name and style of M/s. Shiv Traders for which he used to file income tax returns as well, we are of the comprehension that the income of Rs. 2680/as adopted by the Tribunal was on the lower side10. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on records, in our estimate, the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, on balancing all relevant factors, was just and reasonable. The learned Tribunal not only had appreciated the materials on record in the correct perspectives, it had been realistic in its approach and was informed as well of the practical realities of life to be encountered by the claimant. Its decision making process in our comprehension is informed with the avowed prescription of just compensation as mandated by law