MAINA SUNDRI JAIN Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Smt.Maina Sundri Jain on account of the accident which took place on 7th December,1971 sustained fracture of Pelvis Ring i.e. hip bone apart from numerous other injuries all over her body. The said accident was caused by the truck owned by the N.D.M.C. Smt.Maina Sundri Jain was travelling in three wheeler scooter alongwith her husband and another lady Smt.Sarla Devi. They were returning after attending the funeral of one of their relations. They were proceeding from R.K.Puram to Darya Ganj. The scooter in which they were travelling had hardly crossed the Indian Oil Petrol Pump on Willingdon Cresent near Talkatora Garden when the truck driven by Hari Chand (respondent No.2) in rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against their three wheeler scooter. Because of this accident, the husband of Smt.Maina Sundri Jain died. Smt.Maina Sundri Jain remained in the hospital for two days and for about four months she remained confined to bed at home. On account of the injuries sustained and the fracture, she suffered pain and agony.

(2.) The admitted facts are that her pelvis ring i.e. hip bone was fractured. She remained confined to bed for nearly four months. She was a house wife at the time she met with the accident. She was 45 years old at the time of accident. She claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act (in short the Act). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) accepted in his award that her fracture had left her with a permanent disability. The question now for consideration is whether the award given in her favour amounting to Rs.15,540.00 is sufficient. The contention of Mr.Salwan, counsel for the respondent is that the Tribunal drew wrong inference that she must have spent some money on her injuries, because she had not led any evidence to prove that she spent any money on that account. This argument has no force. Once the injuries are admitted, the Tribunal was justified in drawing the inference which he drew in his award. Similarly once the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence placed before him concluded that she incurred permanent disability, to my mind, for the treatment of the same she requires life long treatment.

(3.) That while awarding the compensation the Tribunal ignored this aspect altogether. Mr.H.S.Dhir rightly contended that had the Tribunal taken note of this fact he would not have awarded only Rs.15,540.00 . To strengthen his arguments that the compensation on account of pain and suffering and the amount spent for purchasing medicines, conveyance charges and general damages should have been awarded as claimed by the appellant. Mr.H.S.Dhir placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Piar Chand Vs. Subhash Chander, 1985 ACJ 389 and Rattan Lal Mehta Vs. Rajinder Kapoor, 1996 ACJ 373. He also placed reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Kumar Iqbal Vs. H.Rehman Khan, 1996 ACJ 552 and on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Anoop Singh Vs. Inder Singh, 1987 ACJ 84 and of Gujarat High Court inthe case of Gurdip Singh Vs. Chauhan Bhupendra Kumar Udesingh, 1980 ACJ 1980 as well as in the case of Bharat Premjibhai Vs. Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, 1979 ACJ 264 and of the Supreme Court in the case of R.D.Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt.Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366. In all these cases, the award of the Tribunal was due to pain and suffering because disability suffered by the injured was permanent hence the compensation was enhanced. In the case of Piar Chand (supra) the injured had a fracture of pelvis bone with central dislocation of hip joint. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,500.00 . In appeal this Court enhanced to Rs.25,000.00 . Similarly in the case of Rattan Lal Mehta (supra) because of the accident the injured lost his right eye and suffered permanent facial disfigurement. His compensation was enhanced to Rs.2 lakhs. The Supreme Court in the case of R.D.Hattangadi (supra) enhanced the compensation to Rs.14,46,000.00 . In all the cases cited above, the compensation was enhanced on account of permanent disability.