Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 176 (MP)

Ram Ratan Dhruv v. Vinay Kumar Singh

2000-02-22

V.K.AGARWAL

body2000
ORDER V.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the award dated 7.10.1999, whereby an amount of Rs. 98,338/- has been awarded against the appellant-the owner of the offending motorcycle. 2. In this appeal, it has not been disputed that the claimant/respondent No. 1 Vinay Kumar Singh met with an accident on 1.4.1998 at about 1.30 p.m., near Super Market Swimming Pool, Kirandul, by motorcycle No. MP 25-A/3611 driven by the owner/appellant Ram Ratan thereof. As a result of the said accident the claimant/respondent No. 1 suffered grievous injuries. Initially he was treated at Hospital at Kirandul, and was then shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. He remained admitted as indoor patient at Apollo Hospital from 4.4.1998 to 23.4.1998. Even thereafter he had to go to Hyderabad for follow-up treatment. 3. The learned Tribunal held that the accident as above occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the appellant Ram Rattan. After considering the nature of injuries, his pain and suffering, an amount of general damages of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded. In addition, keeping in view the expenses incurred by him, an amount of Rs. 68,338/- as special damages, was also awarded. Thus, the total award of Rs. 98,338/- has been passed in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/owner has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred and has granted inflated claim of special damages. In the above context, it has been submitted that the taxi bills of Maruti Car marked as Ex. P/5 to Ex. P/7 relate to a period in which the claimant/respondent No. 1 remained admitted in the Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad. It has further been submitted that, similarly claim relating Jo liquid-diet charges in the shape of frootis and apple juice etc., is highly improbable and the bills Ex. P/8 to Ex. P/11 appear to be for highly inflated amount. It has, therefore, been prayed that the special damages as awarded deserves to be reduced. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 however supported the impugned award. In view of the above contentions, the limited question that arises from consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the special damages of Rs. 68,338/- included in the amount of impugned award, deserves to be sustained or interference, therein is called for? 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 however supported the impugned award. In view of the above contentions, the limited question that arises from consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the special damages of Rs. 68,338/- included in the amount of impugned award, deserves to be sustained or interference, therein is called for? 6. As is the evidence on record and as has been observed in para 10 of the impugned award, undisputably the claimant/respondent No. 1 remained hospitalised at Kirandul Hospital from 1.4.1998 to 3.4.1998 and later from 4.4.1998 to 23.4.1998 at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore, it is obvious, that he must have travelled from Kirandul to Hyderabad on 3rd 4th of April, 1998. Kirandul to Hyderabad is admittedly at a distance of 655 kms. The travelling expenses by taxi for that journey would be admissible. However, from bill Ex. P/5, it appears that charges for travelling from Kate to Hyderabad, have also been charged for the period from 9.4.1998 to 12.4.1998. Again a similar claim has been made for journey from Hyderabad to Kate, during the period from 18.4.1998 to 21.4.1998. The claim as above, has been repeated for the third time in bill Ex. P/6 for a journey from Kate to Hyderabad for the period from 22.4.1998 to 25.4.1998, and thereafter, from 25.4.1998 to 26.4.1998 for journey from Hyderabad to Kirandul. 7. In the above context, the learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 Vinay Singh has stated that since his health was in a precarious condition, his relatives visited him at Hyderabad from Bihar, and claim for their journey from Kate to Hyderabad was made. 8. After considering the contentions, it appears that taxi charges for 10,000/- kms. journey from Hyderabad to Kate for different periods appears to be highly inflated. Even if relatives were brought by taxi during the period in which the claimant/respondent No. 1 remained admitted in the hospital at Hyderabad, only one journey could be permitted. Moreover, it is not clear as to how journey could be performed from Kate to Hyderabad during the period from 22.4.1998 to 25.4.1998, in view of the fact that the claimant/respondent No. 1 was discharged on 23.4.1998 and must have travelled in the taxi from Hyderabad to Kirandul during that period. 9. In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant has made an inflated claim of taxi charges. 9. In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant has made an inflated claim of taxi charges. It is settled law that the claimant/injured is entitled to be reimbursed for the actual expenses which he incurred in treatment etc., but, the claim of compensation by him would not be permitted to be a windfall and means for reaping profit, out of the calamity that unfortunately befell on him. 10. On consideration of the contentions of the learned Counsel for claimant and the circumstances of the case, I consider that the amount of taxi charges of Rs. 54,780/- is exaggerated. Two journeys from Hyderabad to Kate to and fro cannot be permitted in any case. At best, he is entitled to charges for one journey from Kate to Hyderabad. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- deserves to be reduced from the special damages. 11. So far as liquid-diet is concerned, the total thereof is Rs. 9,758/- has been awarded. It appears from the bills in that regard that they are also highly inflated. In bill Ex. P/8 dated 27.4.1998 which is issued by a vendor at Kirandul, charges for frooti 105 pieces and apple juice 35 glasses have been billed. It may be noticed that the claimant/injured after discharge from the Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, must have reached Kirandul on 24.4.1998, If that be so, he could not have consumed so much quantity of frooti and apple juice by 27.4.1998, when the bill was prepared. Again after 6 days there is yet another bill Ex. P/9 dated 3.5.1998 for another 50 glasses of apple juice and 150 frooti bags. Similar is the position of bill Ex. P/10 which is dated 13.5.1998, i.e. 10 days after the bill Ex. P/9, and it relates to 70 glasses of apple juice and 210 bags of frooti. 12. Obviously such a huge quantity of frooti and apple juice could not have been consumed by the injured/claimant. The bill for liquid-diet charges are thus, highly inflated. I consider it proper to allow Rs. 5,000/- towards liquid-diet charges to the claimant/injured in view of the period and nature of ailment. 13. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to special damages of Rs. 34,780/- towards taxi charges, Rs. 5,000/- for special diet and Rs. 3,800/- for room rent. Thus special damages of Rs. 43,580/- as also general damages of Rs. 5,000/- towards liquid-diet charges to the claimant/injured in view of the period and nature of ailment. 13. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to special damages of Rs. 34,780/- towards taxi charges, Rs. 5,000/- for special diet and Rs. 3,800/- for room rent. Thus special damages of Rs. 43,580/- as also general damages of Rs. 30,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, deserve to be awarded to the claimant/respondent No. 1. 14. Therefore, this appeal by the owner driver is partly allowed. Instead of the impugned award of Rs. 98,338/-, an award of Rs. 73,580/- is granted in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimant alongwith the interest @ 12% per cent per annum thereon for the period as ordered by the Tribunal.