PHOOL CHAND Vs. KAMLESH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Phool Chand had put up a claim for compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in an automobile accident which had occurred on the night of 6. 4. 1989 near Hanuman Mandir, Sehore. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had passed an award of. 10,000/- only. This amount was recoverable from the respondent Kamlesh Mishra alone, who was driving the offending scooter at the time of the accident. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, being the purchaser, the insurer and the original owner of the vehicle, were exonerated, This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. He has also urged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being the owner and insurer of the vehicle should also be made liable for compensation. Relief has been claimed against all the respondents.

(2.) THE manner and circumstances in which the accident occurred are not under challenge in this appeal. That the claimant sustained injuries on his person is also proved from the medical evidence of Dr. Gupta, AW 4. As many as 4 injuries were on found including a bleeding injury on his nose. X-ray was advised with respect to 3 of these injuries. The claimant had to be Rshospitalised. From the District Hospital, Sehore, he had to be shifted to Hamidia Hospital at Bhopal. The report of radio logist Exh. P 5 shows that fracture of head of humerus was found. Unfortunately report about any fracture of ribs or other parts of the body could not be commented in this report Exh. P 5 due to poor expo- sure. Hence, there was no corroborative evidence to hold that the collar bone or ribs of the claimant were also fractured as alleged by him.

(3.) THE claimant is an old man who was aged about 70 years at the time of the accident. He was hospitalised for about 15 days. Looking to the facts and circumstances narrated above, we find that compensation of Rs. 5,000/- as expenses of treatment to be inadequate. It is a well-known fact that medical treatment these days is very costly, specially when a person is brought from out-station for treatment to another hospital. Some amount must have also been spent on taking the claimant from Sehore to Bhopal and back to Sehore after recovery. Considerable expenditure must have also been incurred on conveyance, boarding and lodging etc. of his attendants. Then, he must have spent money on X-ray, plaster, medicines and doctor's fees. Therefore, although no bills or vouchers were proved, we are of the opinion that Rs. 10,000/- would be proper compensation towards expenses of treatment. We would also enhance general damages from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-looking to the nature of injuries, the age of the claimant and other circumstances of the case.