ARVIND KUMAR Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present first appeal arises from the award dated 20thOctober, 1987 of Shri B.L.Garg, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. Theappellant, Arvind Kumar filed the petition for compensation under Section 110-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 9,90,000.00 as compensation for injuriessustained by him in the accident. The appellant, it is alleged was driving twowheeler scooter No. DEK 8787 with one Shri Jagdish Chand Bansal on the pillionseat on 21/11/1984 at about 12.00 noon from near Police Picket SaraswatiVihar, Shalimar Bagh on the left side of the Outer Ring road with slow speed whenbus No. DEP 6535 driven rashly, recklessly and negligently by respondent No. 1in due course of his employment with respondent No. 2 came from the oppositedirection on the wrong side of the road and hit the two wheeler scooter with thefront side of the bus. The offending bus stopped after covering some distanceresulting into grievous injuries to the appellant and fatal injuries to Shri JagdishChand Bansal. The bus came on the road meant for traffic going from SaraswatiVihar side towards Inter State Bus Terminus and it came suddenly and hit thescooter with great force resulting into grievous injuries to the appellant. Theappellant as a consequence of the accident has become disabled and was in comafor a long period. The relevant facts are elaborately stated in the Claim Petition asfollows:-(a) The appellant suffered extreme mental pain and agony as a result ofthe injuries received by him in the accident. He has been disabled permanently; his leg has become short by one inch as compared to theother leg. The appellant has lost his health and he will not be able toregain his health which he was enjoying just before the accident. Hehas become crippled and his mental faculties have been adverselyaffected due to this accident caused by respondent No.l He cannotswallow anything except liquid and has to be taken care of constantlyday and night. The appellant has shifted to his brother's residence,ShriS.C. Garg as the cost of attending him was high as compared to thecost incurred at his residence. 6-7 persons were attending on him andeven he needs assistance of minimum two persons day and night.Therefore the appellant will need permanent care throughout his lifeand he shall need special conveyance which may cost aroundRs. l,000.00 per month just to enable him to move about a bit. Theappellant cannot speak as his tongue has been damaged due to braininjury;(b) As an impact of the accident the life of the appellant has been ruined,he will have no chances of settlement in life and marriage and in anycase he will require permanent care; the earning capacity has beenreduced to zero and he has lost enjoyment of life;(e) The family of the appellant is well connected, the elder brother is auniversity topper and is working as lecturer in Delhi UniversityCollege. The second brother is also well placed and the appellant'therefore, would have great success in life considering the status of thefamily and was expected to earn a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 per month at theage of 24 to 25 years.

(2.) The above are the broad averments made by the appellant in his claimpetition. It is further alleged that he was 20 years of age at the time of accident andhe had passed 10+2 examination in the year 1983. He had been doing his businessof property broker in the name and style of Elite Property Dealers and was earningabout Rs. 2,000.00 per month. The resultant effect of the accident is that theappellant is confined to bed and is permanently disabled. Therefore, even thepetition before the Tribunal was filed by his brother Shri S.C. Garg. The amount ofcompensation as claimed under different heads are referred to in paragraph 21 ofthe petition and the same may be reproduced as below:(i) Expenses done on the treatmentof the petitioner/appellant tillthis date Rs.40,000.00(ii) Future treatment expenses Rs. 50,000.00(iii) Pain and sufferings undergoneby the petitioners/appellant Rs.50,000.00(iv) Disability suffered by thepetitioner/appellant Rs. 50,000.00(v) Loss of earning includingfuture loss of earning Rs.4,00,000.00(vi) Loss of enjoyment of lifesuffered by the petitioner Rs. 1,00,000.00appellant(vii) Conveyance expenses Rs. 1,00,000.00(viii) General damages Rs. 2,00,000.00Total Rs. 9,90,000.00

(3.) The written statement was filed by respondents 1 and 3. The factum ofaccident as well as the fact that respondent No. 1 was the driver and respondent 3was the owner was admitted. However, it was pleaded that respondent No. 2 wasnot the owner and as such he was not liable to pay any compensation. The accidentwas alleged to have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter onthe part of the appellant. The bus was insured with respondent No. 4 and as suchrespondents 1 and 3 were not liable to pay any copensation. Respondent No 4has filed separate written statement and admitted the factum of accident butdenied that this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the partof respondent No. 1 The following issues were framed on the pleadings of theparties:1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries as alleged in the petition onaccount of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DEP-6535 on thepart of respondent No. 1?2. To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and fromwhom?3. Relief.Issue No. 1The Tribunal referred to the evidence on record which included the photo-graphs which were taken after the accident as well as the site plan. The learnedJudge held that it was established that the appellant sustained injuries as a resultof rash and negligent driving of bus No. `DEP-6535 as it caused the accident bycoming on the wrong side of the road on the part of respondent No. 1. This issuewas decided accordingly.'Issue No. 2The evidence with regard to this issue was referred to and examined. Public Witness 24,Shri S.C. Garg who is the brother of the appellant and Public Witness 25 Mrs. Vinod Garg whois the wife of the brother of the appellant appeared as witnesses and deposed thatthe appellant sustained serious head injuries, injury on left eye, multiple fractureson both legs and two teeth were broken. He was in complete coma for about 5months. After the accident he was admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital and then hewas shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at about 4.30 p.m. on the same day in theemergency ward under the care of Dr. H.N. Aggarwal, Neurosurgeon. Catscanning was performed and he remained in intensive care unit for about threeweeks. On 7.12.84 cat-scanning was done again and he was shifted to generalhospital as there was no hope for his survival. He was discharged from the hospitalthereafter and was kept at home. He was attended by 5-6 persons during the wholeyear of 1985 and was kept on special diet for about 1- years which cost Rs. 60 toRs. 70.00 per day. The appellant was not in a position to walk properly and sufferedfrom loss of memory and he was unable to do any job. He had been undergoingphysiotherapy and, it is contended that he had already incurred Rs. 40,000.00 onmedical expenses etc. till April, 1985. He has now been held to be permanentlydisabled and his leg has been shortened by one inch. The statement of Public Witness 24, ShriS.C. Garg was corroborated by the statement of Dr. N.V. Kamath, Public Witness 27 fromSanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. The appellant was having weakness of all fourlimbs due to head and spine injuries. He was having difficulty in speaking, walkingand performing other daily activities. Similarly Public Witness 20, Dr. S.C. Sharma, Public Witness 21 Dr.J.P. Manocha from Ganga Ram Hospital were examined. They have reiterated thatthe brain of the petitioner was not functioning and he was in a deep unconsciousstage. The Tribunal assessed the evidence on record and held that the appellantremained hospitalised for a period of about 3 weeks and his left leg was shortenedby one inch. He also remained in coma for about 5 months. Due to head andmultiple bone injuries he has lost speech. The witnesses were not cross-examinedand no rebuttal evidence was led on the side of the respondents. The Tribunalassessed the evidence and found no reason to disbelieve the same.The following amounts were awarded by the Tribunal under the respectiveheads;1. General damages for painand suffering Rs.20,000.002. Treatment/medicineexpenses Rs. 12,000.00(against a claim of Rs. 40,000for expenses already incurred+ Rs. 50,000.00 for future treatment)3. Special conveyance expenses4. Special diet5. Loss of amenities and future enjoyment of life6. Loss of incomeRs. 10,000.00Rs. 10,000.00Rs. 20,000.00Rs. 96,000.00Total Rs.1,68,000.00