JAYSUKHLAL KARSHANDAS CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur awarding compensation of Rs. 4,000/ - to the claimant who suffered injuries in Railway accident. The appellant, Dr. Chauhan, who was serving as Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Sihor, Was travelling to Nagpur by 1 -Down Bombay -Howrah Mail. On 4.8.1979 at about 11.00 a.m. the train met with an accident near Vena River near Butibori and Borkhedi Stations. The appellant was removed to the Government Hospital, Nagpur and was hospitalised till 7.8.1979. He suffered compression fracture of the L -1 vertebral body; Inters pine ligament tear; fracture of spinous process L -5, shock and severe bodily pain. After getting discharge from the Government Hospital, Nagpur on 7.8.1979, he went to Bhavnagar and got himself admitted to the hospital there at Bhavnagar on 9.8.1979. He was hospitalised till 23.8.1979. Being in the Government, the expenses incurred by the appellant for treatment in the hospital as also the expenditure incurred by him for medicine were reimbursed. In the claim petition, the appellant alleged that he gets stiffness in the back while driving scooter and also gets pain. He also gets pain after continuously standing for more than 2 -3 hours. On these counts, he claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(2.) IN the Lower Court, appellant examined himself and stated that after his discharge from Bhavnagar Hospital he was advised complete rest for fifteen days. He also stated that whenever he drives scooter, he developes stiffness in the back resulting into pain. Off and on, while waking up, he gets pain in the back and that he is unable to stand continuously for more than 2 -3 hours, because thereafter he developes pain in the leg. In the cross -examination, he was suggested that he had a slip disc problem before he met with the accident and, therefore, he was getting pain, which suggestion has been flatly denied by him. After considering all the evidence, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs. 4,000/ - finding it to be reasonable in the circumstances. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.

(3.) THE claim basically seems to be seeking compensation on account of pain and suffering resulting into injuries sustained by the appellant during Railway accident. Although it may be true that each injury has to be considered independently for arriving at reasonableness of amount of compensation, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant is suffering from pain independently of the two injuries, viz. compression fracture of the L -1 vertebral body and fracture of spinous process L -5. These injuries are so close to each other that the pain suffered by the appellant cannot be distinguished being arising independently of these two injuries. As such, there could be no assessment of the pain suffered by the appellant on account of each of these two injuries. It is undisputed that the compensation on account of pain and suffering resulting from the injuries sustained in the accident has to be assessed on the basis of reasonableness of the compensation. In this particular case, the learned Lower Court had taken into consideration the extent of pain and suffering arising out of the two injuries. It, however, seems that the learned Trial Court did not take into consideration the fact that the applicant was required to be hospitalised between 9.8.1979 and 23.8.1979 and thereafter he was required to take bed rest for fifteen days. The applicant is a doctor. Although there are no details as to how long the appellant had to stand while performing operation and as to how many times in a week or month he is required to do his duty, the fact remains that the applicant being a doctor, was required to help in the operations performed in the Government Hospital. It is common knowledge that in the Government Hospitals, the operations are performed almost daily and the appellant must have been preferred to assist in such performance of operations whenever he was on duty. Another aspect which needs to be noted is that the appellant had to move on scooter for performing his duty as a doctor. If all these aspects are taken into consideration, it appears that the exercise of discretion by the learned Lower Court for assessing reasonableness of the compensation on account of pain and suffering of the appellant resulting from injuries, was inadequate. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to increase the amount of compensation by equal amount of Rs. 4,000/ -. As such, the appeal needs to be allowed. Hence the order.