POOJA CHOWDRY Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three appeals are connected. FAO Nos.5252 and 5253 of 2003 are at the instance of the insurance company on the issue of liability, while FAO No.1559 of 2004 is at the instance of the claimant seeking for enhancement of claim for compensation at RS.5,20,000.00.

(2.) IN this case the claimant was the wife of the proprietor of Chowdry Diagnostic Centre and it was her contention that she was working as Manager in her husband's diagnostic centre and receiving RS.5000.00 per month as salary. On account of serious injuries suffered by her, she had been taking treatment from CMC Hospital, Ludhiana and remained admitted from 18.1.2000 to 2.2.2000. The contention is that on account of the injuries suffered by the wife, the diagnostic centre remained closed and her husband had suffered a loss of RS.1,50,000.00. AW-4 Michael Joseph had produced documents relating to the hospital bills levied on the claimant by the CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. The Doctor had certified her to have suffered 14% disability on account of shortening of right femur by 1 cm. with 1/3rd loss of flisces (SIC) of right elbow. Dr. Gurbaksh Chowdry who appeared as AW-3 stated that his wife was using crutches for two months and continued to limp till the day of trial. It was stated that that she had undergone two operations due to non-union of thigh bone and had a rod placed in right leg to reduce the fracture. Jaw bone had also been broken and there had been straightening by wiring. A certificate from the Trauma & Spine Centre, Pathankot was to the effect that she required surgical removal of nails and screws from the humerous and femur under anaesthesia and while determining the compensation, the Tribunal had awarded X 5,20,000.00 that included X 60,000.00 for loss of income for nearly a year @ X 5000.00 per month. I will accord the same and will not factor the issue of loss alleged to have been suffered by her husband by his inability to carry on with his diagnostic centre on account of the injuries suffered by his wife. The damage claimed through her husband is not the proximal cause and therefore, it cannot be accommodated. The Tribunal had awarded X 20,000.00 for special diet and X 20,000.00 for attendant charges which are reasonable and would not require any modification. The entire amount of treatment expenses governed through the bills had been fully provided for by grant of RS.3,30,000.00 under that head. I will find no reason to increase the same. The claimant had produced taxi fare bills Ex.A54 to Ex.A79 amounting to X 61,000.00 and further a amount of X 46,000.00 from CMC Hospital, Ludhaina. The Tribunal found that there had been some exaggeration in the bills in respect of taxi fare and therefore, did not totally discount them, but took that into consideration while awarding the compensation of X 3,30,000.00 for hospital expenses that included transportation charges also. The reason for not accepting all the bills has been properly explained by the Tribunal and I would, therefore, not find any reason to increase the same. For a fracture of the arm and the leg and for injuries suffered on her face, the Tribunal had awarded X 40,000.00 for pain and suffering and provided for future operation for removal of plates and screws X 20,000.00. For the disability of 14% ascertained, which was temporary in character, by her having to walk on crutches with further difficulty of movement of the arm while eating, the Tribunal had provided for X 40,000.00 as pain and suffering which also, in my view, was appropriate. The overall assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is fair and just and I will not find any reason to modify the same. The appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is, therefore, dismissed on merits, although the counsel for the appellant did not appear to present his case. The details of determining compensation even for injuries are reasonably certain and I, therefore, found no reason for dismissal of the appeal in default, especially also by the fact that in connected two appeals arising out of the same accident the counsel for the insurance company is present and was ready with all the details. I have examined this case with the records available and with the assistance of the counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company.

(3.) THE insurer shall be liable to satisfy the claim of the claimants. For adjudication, this issue will have a bearing only to settle the inter se dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the insured and the driver on the other hand. The award is set aside as regards the issue liability, while affirming the award as regards the quantum and the liability of the insurer to satisfy the claim of the claimants.