MADAN LAL PAPNEJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. Appeal for enhancement of compensation for injuries: 1. Against an award granting Rs. 17,700 for the injuries suffered in the accident, there is a claim for enhancement through the appeal. The appellant is said to have suffered injuries in his arm and leg that caused fractures and he was an inpatient for 7 days and was taking treatment as an outpatient for 4 months. His contention was that the injuries have left him severely disabled and the doctor, who was treating him, was examined as PW 2, who stated that the claimant had fracture of shaft of humerus on the right side and other multiple injuries. The award has been passed only against the Haryana State Roadways. The appeal is as regards quantum and no plea is made questioning the issue of liability as already determined by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, claimant examined himself and gave evidence to the effect that by virtue of injuries, he had suffered loss of income for 4 months and he had incurred medical expenses to the tune of more than Rs. 10,000. He gave evidence to the effect that he had incurred Rs. 3,000 towards conveyance charges and had the assistance of physiotherapist and had paid him Rs. 4,000. He stated that he spent Rs. 10,000 towards special diet. Against all these claims, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 5,700 towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 2,000 towards physiotherapist charges and others. II. Arbitrary mode of assessment of compensation for injuries-a recurrent theme:

(2.) THE claims for compensation for injuries have at all times been arbitrary and in the perception of a claimant, no award is appropriate and it has to be invariably assailed in an appellate forum. THE reasons are not far to seek. While pecuniary damages could be easily assessed, non-pecuniary damages like pain and suffering, disability, loss of amenities for life and loss of earning power are all open to various degrees of assessment and each Tribunal or court adopts different parameters or perhaps no parameter at all before awarding compensation. Consequently, the satisfaction quotient in injury cases is dismally poor. I propose, therefore, to provide for a certain homogeneity in approach by laying down a formula to address all claims in injury cases on a uniform and, what I believe will be, an acceptable basis. III. Need to avoid ad hocism and arbitrariness in the matter of compensation for injuries:

(3.) IN all accident claims relating to injuries, there are broadly two large heads of claims, viz., pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages are invariably driven through documentary evidence. The Tribunal shall, therefore, avoid arbitrariness by merely conjecturing damages and look for evidence placed by claimant. The following are the pecuniary heads of claims: (i) Loss of income [several High Courts have awarded compensation even for sick leave on full pay]. [See Kersasp Ardeshir Mehta v. Union of INdia, 1986 ACJ 1002 (Bombay); Union of INdia v. Yashwant Singh, 1987 ACJ 437 (MP); Bhera Ram v. Bhiya Ram, 1990 ACJ 724 (Rajasthan); See for contra view: Rama Bai v. H. Mukunda Kamath, 1986 ACJ 561 (Karnataka)]; (ii) Transport to hospital; (iii) Attendant charges; (iv) Diet and nutrition and (v) Medical expenses. The Tribunal shall elicit at the trial all the above heads correctly or as nearly as possible and shall not venture on its own estimation without basis. The practice of adding some amounts over and above the medical bills on a wide statement that all bills could not have been made available as justification for making further additions shall at all times be avoided. V. Subjective component in non-pecuniary heads, cause for arbitrariness: