JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- This is an appeal brought by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim petition had been brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the injuries the claimant suffered in a road side accident that took place on 3.11.2008. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 15.5.2010 allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant. 2. The claimant, who was riding a motorcycle on 3.11.2008 at a moderate speed, at about 9.30 AM he was hit by a pick up vehicle driven by respondent no.1. The claimant suffered serious injuries including fracture of his leg. He was taken to General Hospital, Gurgaon, where he was medically examined . He was then shifted to Arora Hospital, Hisar. He remained hospitalized at various hospitals and he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 22%. 3. The respondents have denied the aforesaid averments of the claimant. They have denied the claimant to have suffered the injuries he claimed in his petition and he is denied to deserve the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Learned Tribunal discussed the entire evidence under issue no.2 and assessed a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- as compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the claimant had proved a sum of Rs.77,714.40 paise as the expenses incurred in his treatment. According to him, learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the fact that some amounts are spent in such like cases without obtaining bills. He has further submitted that the appellant remained hospitalized for 59 days and he remained on leave for a longer period. According to him, he remained hospitalized at General Hospital, Gurgaon from 3.11.2008 to 10.11.2008 and then he was shifted to Arora Hospital, Hisar where he remained hospitalized from 11.11.2008 to 8.12.2008. According to him, the claimant remained hospitalized again from 22.1.2009 to 2.2.2009 and from 15.5.2009 to 29.05.2009. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has assessed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges, which is at a very lower side. According to him, he has assessed Rs.44,000/- as loss of future income on account of permanent disability. He has further submitted that this amount is also on a lower side. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has assessed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges, which is at a very lower side. According to him, he has assessed Rs.44,000/- as loss of future income on account of permanent disability. He has further submitted that this amount is also on a lower side. He has further submitted that a sum of Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenses are also on lower side. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal has been fully justified in assessing Rs.1,74,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant. According to him, no further amount is admissible to the claimants as compensation. 7. While finding a sum of Rs.77714.40 paise as the expenses incurred by the claimant on his treatment, learned Tribunal rounded off this figure to Rs.78,000/-. He has not taken care of any amount which the claimant/attendant could have spent in purchasing medicines during the early hours of the post accident period without obtaining bills. At least some amount should have been added in the name of expenses incurred on the treatment of the claimant without obtaining bills. I take Rs.80,000/- as the expenses incurred by the claimant on his treatment. 8. The claimant had been hospitalized at General Hospital, Gurgaon and then was taken to Arora Hospital, Hisar and from Arora Hospital, Hisar he was discharged in the beginning on 8.12.2008 and he sought readmission with effect from 22.1.2009. He was readmitted on 15.5.2009 also . How many times he would have visited the hospital in the OPD can also be presumed from this evidence. For conveyance and attendant charges, a sum of Rs.7000/- has been assessed by learned Tribunal, which appears to be too low. I therefore, find a sum of Rs.25,000/- to be adequate to compensate the claimant for his expenses on conveyance and attendant charges. 9. For hospitalization on a number of occasions and for about two months the expenses on special diet cannot be said to be limited to Rs.10,000/- only. Looking to the period of treatment as well as the period of recuperating at home, I assess a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for special diet. 10. The claimant has been 26 years old. He has suffered 22% disability at this young age. Looking to the period of treatment as well as the period of recuperating at home, I assess a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for special diet. 10. The claimant has been 26 years old. He has suffered 22% disability at this young age. A sum of Rs.44,000/- assessed as loss of future income on account of the disability by learned Tribunal is on a lower side. However, much increase in the same is not admissible. Therefore, I assess a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of future income on account of the disability. 11. The disability would have also caused loss of future enjoyment of life. It is a case where the leg of the claimant has been shortened by 1-1/2 inches. He will have to live with the short leg throughout the life. So, I assess a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for loss of future enjoyment of life. 12. For pain and suffering, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Right from 3.11.2008 till 29.05.2009 the claimant had been taking rounds of the hospitals. He must have remained under treatment even thereafter. His pain and suffering cannot be compensated by awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- only. Looking to the period of his treatment, I enhance the amount to Rs.40,000/- for pain and suffering. 13. Learned Tribunal has assessed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as future medical expenses. I find no reason to interfere with the same because no good evidence has been led to prove that in future the claimant would require treatment. In these circumstances, I find a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation payable to the claimantappellant. 14. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,74,000/- to Rs.2,55,000/- which shall be payable to the claimant by the respondents with interest and in the manner as allowed by the Tribunal. -------------------------- Varinder Singh v. Shamsher Singh 2013(5) Law Herald (P&H) 4507 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan FAO No.4093 of 2011 (O&M) Varinder Singh s/o Shri Sahab Singh v. Shamsher Singh s/o Shri Ram Kishan {Decided on 28/05/2013} For the Appellant: Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate. Accident--Interest--Amount awarded for future medical expenses--Interest not to be provided. (A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.171--Accident--Interest--Amount awarded for future medical expenses--Interest not to be provided. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate. Accident--Interest--Amount awarded for future medical expenses--Interest not to be provided. (A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.171--Accident--Interest--Amount awarded for future medical expenses--Interest not to be provided. (Para 5) (B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.171--Accident--Loss of earning capacity--Injured aged 21 years suffered hearing disability at 90%--Loss of earning capacity taken as 50%. (Para 5) (C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Disability at 90%--Future Medical Expenses--Hearing disability at 90%--Appellant requires further treatment and the cost of equipment and the medical expenses would be about Rs.10,26,000/- --The entire amount would require to be provided and on the basis that there is adequate medical evidence to show that he requires further treatment and that the cost of equipment and hospital expenses including the surgeon’s fee would cost him additional amounts. (Para 4) (D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Loss of amenities of life--Loss of hearing disability 90%--Loss of amenities of life enhanced from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.2,00,000. (Para 5) JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.:- The appeal is at the instance of the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation for injury sustained in a motor accident. The claimant was 21 years of age and was an agriculturist and claimed that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. After the accident on 23.01.2008, he was treated at CHC, Assandh as outdoor patient and he was referred to General Hospital, Karnal where he remained as indoor patient and took further treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak. The Medical Board constituted at the General Hospital, Karnal certified him to have suffered 90% loss in hearing. The Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs.9,65,000/- that included treatment cost of Rs.8,28,000/- and the other heads of claim were disability Rs.90,000/-, loss of income Rs.18,000/-, pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- and transportation and special diet Rs.9,000/-. 2. The contention in appeal is that yet another surgery has to be performed for another ear also and the cost of equipment and the cost of treatment were also required to be provided for. The counsel would point out to the evidence of Dr. G.L. Dhal, Senior Medical Officer at General Hospital, Karnal, who had immediately after the accident examined him when he found that he was having a hearing loss of 99.66 dB in left ear and 84.33 dB in right ear and the total hearing handicap was 90%. The counsel would point out to the evidence of Dr. G.L. Dhal, Senior Medical Officer at General Hospital, Karnal, who had immediately after the accident examined him when he found that he was having a hearing loss of 99.66 dB in left ear and 84.33 dB in right ear and the total hearing handicap was 90%. A Senior Consultant, Department of ENT, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at New Delhi had given a certificate exhibited as P-18 where he had given evidence to the effect that a cochlear implant package at the hospital would cost Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment charges that included hospitalization charges for a single room, operation charges, theater charges etc. and this was exclusive of the cost of equipment itself. The appellant had provided documentary proof that a cochlear implant would cost Rs.9,26,000/-. Cochlear implant, I gather helps a patient understand speech better. The quality of sound, it is believed, is different from natural hearing, with less sound information being received and processed by the brain. The counsel would also argue that the petitioner has not been provided for loss of future earning and recurrent cost of change of batteries. 3. The counsel appearing for the insurance company contends that the averment made in the claim petition itself showed that he had hearing impairment only in one ear and for that he had already been provided for. There could be no scope for further treatment of yet another ear. The counsel makes specific reference to Clause 13 of the petition, which states that “due to the accident, the left ear of the appellant became permanently disabled as he is not in a position to hear anything.” I have seen through the entire evidence and I find that the petition must be understood properly in the context of the facts and circumstances. While stating that the appellant is not able to hear anything from the left ear, he did not make surely any reference to the right ear but it is seen from the evidence of PW1 himself, who while referring him to PGIMS, Rohtak has carried out test of hearing capacity as Medical Officer, GH, Karnal and found that he was having hearing loss in both ears to the extent already mentioned above. The claimant himself has given evidence as PW4 to the effect that he had already undergone a surgery at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and he remained in hospital from 24.05.2009 to 27.05.2009 and he had spent Rs.1,01,897/- towards hospital charges and Rs.5,35,000/- towards cost of equipment. He had also stated that Dr. A.K. Lahiri, Senior Consultant, Department of ENT Sir Ganga Ram Hospital has advised cochlear implant to the left ear. He had also stated that he was a “deaf patient having 90% hearing handicap”. He had also stated that he is totally incapable of doing any cultivation and that he had to engage services of two servants for looking after and doing the said cultivation for which he has to spent Rs.6,000/- per month. 4. In the manner in which the evidence has been brought, it is clear that the appellant requires further treatment and the cost of equipment and the medical expenses would be about Rs.10,26,000/-. The entire amount would require to be provided and on the basis that there is adequate medical evidence to show that he requires further treatment and that the cost of equipment and hospital expenses including the surgeon’s fee would cost him additional amounts. I will provide the same for him as admissible compensation. 5. In the total assessment made, the Court has provided for a compensation of Rs.90,000/- only for the disability and I would take this amount as inadequate for a person who is completely deaf or as close to being stone deaf, with a disability assessed at 90%. He cannot be said to be a normal person. The Court has not properly appreciated the loss of amenities to life for a young person aged about 21 years. Due to loss of hearing a person becomes a duffer and suffers a serious impairment of closure of an important window of knowledge through hearing. His own speech could get muffled for himself and he has to live for the rest of his life with very serious inconvenience. He has to develop a normal self esteem against ridicule for the handicap suffered by him. Even in normal life, a correction of faculty of sight right through spectacles is never regarded as a stigma. A hearing aid unfortunately is not seen merely as a contrivance to improve a sensorial experience. He has to develop a normal self esteem against ridicule for the handicap suffered by him. Even in normal life, a correction of faculty of sight right through spectacles is never regarded as a stigma. A hearing aid unfortunately is not seen merely as a contrivance to improve a sensorial experience. A hearing impairment for a young person is truly and serious physical and psychological handicap. Studies indicate that negative stereotypes and prejudices are attributed to people who have hearing loss. They are perceived as old, cognitively diminished and poor/uninteresting communication partners. Hearing loss is often misunderstood as an intellectual challenge or a deficiency in personality and character. Montreal University Studies (2000, 2007) indicate that stigma is one of the main reasons given by people to explain why they do not accept wearing hearing aid. 28% of people who have, hearing impairment admit not to be using hearing aid because “people treat you differently” (when one is wearing it), 22% think that “people make fun of us” and 20% think that hearing aids “make you look mentally slow”. (see study of University of Montreal - Jean Pierre Gagne, Mary Beth Jennings and Kenneth Southal (2009). I will increase the loss of amenities to life suffered through disability to Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.90,000/-. The loss of income has also not been properly assessed. I will take the disability to have resulted in 50% loss of earning capacity and taking the average income at Rs.4,000/- being the value of his labour at the agriculture field, I will assess the loss of earning capacity as Rs.4,000 X 50% X 12x 18 = Rs.4,32,000/-. I will also provide for Rs.10,26,000/- for future medical expenses. There shall be an additional compensation of Rs.15,78,000/- (Rs.1,10,000/- + Rs.4,32,000/- + Rs.10,26,000/-). Since the additional compensation substantially is for the future medical expenses, I am not providing for any interest. Since the provision for medical expenses again is brought as what is likely to be the expenditure, the amount of Rs.10,26,000/- shall be retained by the Tribunal and the rest of the amount shall alone be released forthwith to the appellant. A portion of the amount shall be released in favour of the particular hospital where treatment is taken on presentation of a provisional bill. A portion of the amount shall be released in favour of the particular hospital where treatment is taken on presentation of a provisional bill. The Tribunal shall monitor the payments through cheques to the hospital directly on taking the provisional bill in advance and the Superintendent of the Court attached to the Tribunal may be entrusted the responsibility of making over the cheques and delivering them to the hospital to evoke a sense of credibility that the balance amount shall be paid to the hospital at the time of making the final bill. 6. The liability shall be on the insurance company as determined already by the Court below. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.