Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2082 (PNJ)

Rajpati v. Om Parkash

2017-09-14

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. The present appeal is filed against the award dated 05.03.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short ‘the Tribunal'). 2. Rajpati wife of Ram Kumar resident of village Chappra, District Sonepat suffered fracture of her left foot and left arm. In MLR Ex.P17, the injuries were said to be grievous in nature. She was struck by truck bearing registration No. RJ-21G-2821 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’) which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. 3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant claiming compensation for the injuries. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and witnesses, awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000/- as compensation to the appellant under the following heads:- Head Amount awarded Medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 2,000/- Special diet & Attendant Rs. 3,000/- Loss of earning Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Future treatment expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 85,000/- The said amount was awarded along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 5. Aggrieved of the said award, the claimant filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book with their able assistance. 7. The facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties. The only issue is regarding enhancement of compensation. 8. The appellant, who is 55 years old household lady, suffered fracture on the left arm and left foot. She was operated upon and was hospitalized for 13 days, i.e. from 14.08.2011 to 27.08.2011. Dr. Ajay Goel (PW.2) deposed before the Tribunal and filed his affidavit Ex.PW-2/A. The appellant produced bills, Ex.P3 to Ex.P16, with regard to the surgery, implant and medicines. Total sum of these bills is Rs. 49,567/-. Further, for follow-up treatment, I have perused these receipts, total of which comes to approximately Rs. 1.00 lac. The Tribunal restricted the claim only to Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses, by observing that though follow-up treatment receipts have been produced but no medical record regarding follow-up treatment has been produced. It is not disputed that the appellant suffered grievous injuries and was operated, she was hospitalized, in such circumstances, the follow-up treatment is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the amount awarded under the head ‘medical expenses’ is enhanced to Rs. 1.00 lac. 9. It is not disputed that the appellant suffered grievous injuries and was operated, she was hospitalized, in such circumstances, the follow-up treatment is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the amount awarded under the head ‘medical expenses’ is enhanced to Rs. 1.00 lac. 9. Further, the conveyance receipts, Ex.P18 to Ex.P28, were also produced, but the same were not considered by the Tribunal, as no body was examined to prove these receipts. It would be apparent that with a fractured foot and fractured arm, conveyance would have been needed by the appellant. Keeping in view this fact, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as conveyance charges is very meager and is, therefore, enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. 10. For 13 days, during which the appellant remained admitted in hospital, and subsequent thereto, for the recovery period, minimum one attendant would have been required by the appellant. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for special diet and attendant is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. 11. With regard to compensation under the head 'loss of earning', the value of services rendered by a house-wife was considered as Rs. 2,500/- per month and the appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for two months, during which she would have remained out of work due to the injuries suffered by her. I have considered this aspect of the matter. The appellant was a house wife. A house wife does not work by the clock and her services are 24 X 7, which cannot be assessed in terms of money. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others Versus Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015 (4) SCC 237 , has held as under: ''Even assuming Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi was not self-employed doing embroidery and tailoring work, the fact remains that she was a housewife and a home maker. It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a housemother. The services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognised the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money. It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a housemother. The services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed. Courts have recognised the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money. A house-wife/home-maker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the home maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency.'' Keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the services rendered by the appellant, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. 13. Further, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and the fact that she was operated, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- awarded on account of pain and suffering also requires enhancement and the same is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. 14. However, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses is just and reasonable, and the same does not require any interference. 15. The net effect of the aforesaid discussion is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is enhanced as under: Head Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded now by this court Medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- (enhanced by Rs. 50,000/-) Conveyance charges Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 10,000/- (enhanced by Rs. 8,000/-) Special diet & Attendant Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 10,000/- (enhanced by Rs. 7,000/-) Loss of earning Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 10,000/- (enhanced by Rs. 5,000/-) Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 20,000/- (enhanced by Rs. 5,000/-) Future treatment expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- (no enhancement) Total Rs. 85,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/- (enhanced by Rs. 75,000/-) Hence, the award dated 05.03.2013 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the total compensation of Rs. 85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,60,000/-. The appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount. 16. Appeal is partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms.