RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein were travelling in a stage carriage bus belonging to the M. P. State Road Trans. Corporation on 14. 3. 1983. The bus dashed against a tree on the left side of the road and as a result the appellants in the two appeals sustained injuries. They filed two separate claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs. 59,000/-and Rs. 1,65,000/- respectively as compensation on the allegation that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver. The claim was resisted by the owner and driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving and awarded Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 5,500/respectively to the two claimants along with interest at 9 per cent and awarded costs quantifying advocate's fee at Rs. 30/- in each case. The claimants being aggrieved by the quantification have filed these appeals.

(2.) M. A. No. 135 of 1984 may be considered first. Exh. P-10 is the medical report with regard to the claimant prepared on the day of the accident. It shows that there was tenderness and swelling of the nose and bleeding from the nose. There was also swelling on the shoulder joint. The claimant was under the treatment of the Government doctor, P. W. 1. Exhs. P-4 to P-8 are prescriptions issued by P. W. 1. He issued a certificate, Exh. P-9, dated 16. 7. 1983. It shows that the claimant developed permanent disfigurement of face due to injury to the nose and this abnormality is also causing difficulty in normal physiological function of nose (breathing through nose ). P. W. 1 deposed that the claimant received an injury on the nose which caused deformity of the nasal bridge, i. e. , it became crooked, leading to difficulty in breathing and the patient had lost the power of smell. The claimant examined himself as P. W. 2. No doubt he tried to exaggerate his condition by stating that he had lost four teeth in the accident. This is not borne out by either of the certificates or by the evidence of P. W. 1. He deposed that he was working as a teacher and could not attend duty for five months for which he had to take leave and he was not given salary for over a month. He deposed that he spent Rs. 3,000/- for the treatment. On a consideration of all these circumstances the Tribunal fixed compensation of Rs. 3,500/ -.

(3.) THERE is nothing to show that the evidence of P. W. 1 that there was deformity of the nose and difficulty in breathing caused by the accident is not correct. He has also sustained a minor injury on the shoulder. Necessarily, he must have spent some money for medical treatment. He had to take leave from his job. Since the injury was to the nose, he must have suffered agony at least for some period. In the light of the circumstances there can be no doubt that the compensation awarded is unreasonably low. Claimant is entitled to compensation for the injury itself, for the pain and suffering undergone by him, the disfiguration of the face, the expenses for medical treatment, etc. In the absence of better evidence one can only arrive at a reasonable estimate which cannot be less than Rs. 25,000/- in this case.