SURENDER KAUR Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Award impugned is the Award dated 24.11.2010 vide which total compensation in the sum of Rs.4,80,584/- had been granted to the injured/petitioner. THE petitioner/Surender Kaur had suffered an accident on 13.12.2008 when she was going on a motorcycle being driven by her son/Simranpreet Singh. Both the injured had received injuries and had been removed to the AIIMS Hospital. On the pleadings of the party and after examining respective evidence of parties, the aforenoted amount had been granted in favour of the claimant/petitioner. Present application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Code) has been filed wherein it has been contended that certain bills of the medical treatment of the victim had been overlooked as they could not be adduced at the time of leading evidence before the learned Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that in this application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code no details have been given of the aforenoted bills; they also do not find mention as an annexure to the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however pointed out that the aforenoted bills have been placed on record and are at running pages No. 36. to page No. 86 of the paper book. Copy of this application had been furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that all these bills are from October, 2010; a perusal of the first document at page No. 36 which is a hospital slip of the Batra Hospital indicates that the patient had fallen from the stairs on 08.10.2010 pursuant to which she has sustained injury on the thigh; on a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has conceded that these medical treatment papers are related to the afornoted period when the victim Surender Kaur had fallen from the stairs; they have no relation to the accident whatsoever which had occurred on 13.12.2008. This application is clearly an abuse; it is misconceived; it is dismissed.

(2.) THE grievance of the appellant in the impugned Award is that the amounts awarded under the head of "conveyance and special diet charges" which is in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and "pain suffering and loss of amenities of life" at Rs. 50,000/- is on the lower count. Record shows that the patient had suffered no permanent disability. She had suffered grievous injuries i.e. segmental fracture right femur with fracture distal femur left with fracture right clavicle with fracture premaxilla and dentoalveolar alognwith head injury. Patient remained admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient admittedly for a period about 25 days with effect from 14.10.2008 up to 08.01.2009. THE victim has been compensated for the complete medical bills which had been presented by her i.e. in the sum of Rs. 3,98,486/-. Court had also keept in view the fact that since the lady was unable to join her duty because of the injury suffered by her, under the head "loss of income" awarded a sum of Rs. 22,098/- i.e. for a period of six months; keeping in view her salary of Rs. 3,683/- which were the minimum wages applicable in the case of the victim who was doing stitching work from the house. Under the head "conveyance and special diet charges" in this factual scenario had awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. This was taking judicial notice of the fact that although the patient had remained in the hospital for about 25 days; she must have made some visits to the hospital as also keeping in view the specialized diet required for an accident victim. Keeping in view the status of the victim amount awarded under this category in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- suffers from no infirmity. "Pain and suffering and loss of the amenities of life" had also been construed in the correct perspective wherein a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- had been granted; total awarded amount of Rs. 4,80,584/- suffers from no infirmity. Appeal is dismissed.