Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1178 (HP)

GAMBHIR SINGH v. ONKAR SINGH

2009-12-03

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.-This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimant claiming enhancement of compensation. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant who is an advocate met with an accident while boarding bus No.HP-38-6997 when the driver suddenly started the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una has awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,227/- in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is now in appeal and claims that the compensation should be enhanced further. 3. The petitioner is an advocate practicing at Una and is aged about 50 years. He is also working as Notary Public. According to the petitioner, he could not work for a period of about six months. He also claims to have been attended upon by attendants. Dr.Poojan Jaswal, PW/4 has stated that on 8.5.2001 he attended Sh.Gambhir Singh and found injuries on his person. Since the injuries were serious, the petitioner was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. 4. PW/7 Dr.S.K.Singh is Associate Professor from the Department of Urology, PGI, Chandigarh. According to him, the petitioner was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh on 8.5.2001. He was found to have fracture of the hip bone and an injury to his urethra. 5. He was discharged on 10.5.2001 after urinary diversion, i.e., putting a catheter. The petitioner attended the Urology department as out-patient on 19.6.2001and investigations revealed complete urethral blockage. Thereafter, the petitioner was advised to undergo endoscopic surgery. This witness has stated that the blockage of urethra can recur again and again throughout life of the petitioner and cause difficulty in passage of urine. He has stated that there are various types of treatment available to manage this problem but in case of urethral dilation, the procedure would have to be repeated very often. One dilation costs Rs.500/- including test. He has assessed the disability of the petitioner at 7%. He has admitted that the petitioner never visited him after 16.8.2001 and he cannot say what is the condition of the petitioner thereafter. 6. PW/8 Dr.Anup Rattan has stated that he has been treating the petitioner since March, 2002. One dilation costs Rs.500/- including test. He has assessed the disability of the petitioner at 7%. He has admitted that the petitioner never visited him after 16.8.2001 and he cannot say what is the condition of the petitioner thereafter. 6. PW/8 Dr.Anup Rattan has stated that he has been treating the petitioner since March, 2002. According to him, the patient was operated for obstruction in the urethra on 6.2.2002 and remained admitted in the hospital till 8.2.2002. He further stated after 8.2.2002 till his statement was recorded in the year, 2004 the petitioner had visited his hospital six times for dilation and each dilation in the private hospital costs Rs.1000/-. This witness also stated that the petitioner lastly visited his hospital on 5.8.2003. 7. The petitioner in his statement has stated that he was treated at PGI, Chandigarh and remained under treatment there till 16.8.2001. Thereafter he started treatment from Dr.P.N.Gupta of P.N. Urological Centre, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh and from 19.1.2002 he has been getting treatment from PW/8 Dr.Anup Kumar at Hoshiarpur. According to the petitioner, due to the problem to the urethra, he does not have any control on the urine discharge and, therefore, he has to visit the toilet at frequent intervals to answer the call of nature. He has stated that he faces problems even in his court work. 8. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.5000/- per month and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.20,000/- for loss of earning. He has also awarded to the petitioner Rs.89,227.90 paise on account of medical bills, attendant bills and fruit expenses. The petitioner has been awarded Rs.20,000/-on account of pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life and Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium. 9. Sh.Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the appellant urges that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future medical expenses and has also not awarded any amount for future loss of income. It is also urged that the amount awarded for loss of amenities of life is very low. As far as future loss of income is concerned, the doctors examined by the petitioner have not stated a word that the injury will in any manner effect the earning of the petitioner. He is an advocate and Notary Public and such an injury cannot effect his earning capacity. 10. As far as future loss of income is concerned, the doctors examined by the petitioner have not stated a word that the injury will in any manner effect the earning of the petitioner. He is an advocate and Notary Public and such an injury cannot effect his earning capacity. 10. However, it has come on record that the petitioner is bound to undergo one or two dilations every year and each dilation costs Rs.1000/-. The cost of this procedure may increase over period of time. In addition to the cost of procedure, every time, the petitioner goes for dilation, he shall have to miss court and travel from Una to Hoshiarpur. Keeping into consideration all these factors, I feel that the petitioner would spent at least Rs.3000/- per year on medical expenses arising out of the injury in future. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner, it would not be unreasonable to apply a multiplier of 12 and he is awarded Rs.36,000/- for future medical expenses. 11. Even the amount awarded to the petitioner for loss of amenities, i.e., Rs.10,000/- is extremely low. The injury makes him visit the toilet very often and can be a source of embarrassment. The medical evidence discussed above shows that this injury may aggravate in future. Keeping all these factors into consideration and also the age of the petitioner, it is held that this amount should be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Thus the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs.76,000/- in all. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,49,227/- to Rs.2,25,227/-. The Insurance Company has already paid a sum of Rs.1,49,227/-. The claimant is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on this amount of enhancement of Rs.76,000/-w.e.f. 19.3.2002, i.e., the date of filing of the claim petition till the deposit of the amount. 13. In view of above discussion, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,49,227/-to Rs.2,25,227/- with interest aforesaid. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest in the Registry of this Court within 12 weeks from today. No order as to costs.