SHEELA RANI Vs. NIDHAN SINGH ALIAS KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. FAO No.2050 of 2003 relates to a claim for compensation for injuries alleged to have been suffered by the claimant on face and head which according to the petitioner resulted in prolonged treatment from the date of the accident from 11.03.1998 to 13.09.2000. She stated that she was unable to concentrate like she was doing before and she had spent about Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1.5 lakh towards medical expenses. She was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital at Rajpura initially and later her further clinical management had been done at the PGI, Chandigarh. The Tribunal had assessed the compensation at Rs. 35,000.00 addressing the compensation under various heads that included Rs. 15,000.00 for pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000.00 for transportation, Rs. 5,000.00 for special diet, Rs. 5,000.00 for attendant charges and Rs. 5,000.00 for operation charges. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that she had a serious brain injury and the Court had not properly assessed the compensation. It appears that this Court had in an earlier dispensation made an enhancement of compensation to Rs. 50,000.00 and this was taken to the Supreme Court along with yet another appeal filed in a related claim in the same accident. The related claim was at the instance of her motherin- law (Budhwanti), which was the subject of adjudication in FAO No.2051 of 2003. The said case was also taken up for further appeal seeking for an enhanced claim. Before the Supreme Court, the challenge was that this Court had not considered the different heads of claim as permissible under law for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The Supreme Court had observed no basis had been made for reappraisal of the compensation and a lumpsum payment could not have been made without properly adverting to the several heads of claim which are possible.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that no medical bills had been produced before the Court but the bed head tickets which the party has, which are still not produced before the Court, show that she had a prolonged treatment. The counsel would state that the MLR showed that she had bleeding in her ear and nose and that they should be taken as something serious. I have gone through the evidence of doctor-PW4, who has repeated what was contained in the MLR. The manner of treatment that was given to her at PGI or the actual state of disability that she was suffering from has not been given through any medical evidence. PW4, who was the doctor-I.C.Taneja, has stated that, "....I conducted medico legal examination of Sheela Rani wife of Kharaiti Lal, 38 years, female resident of Village Khamano, District Fetehgarh Sahib. .......... I found injuries No.1 and 2 as detailed in his MLR, the copy of the report is PW4/A." Beyond this, there is no other reference to the nature of injury or the disability. I have seen through the copy of the MLR which states as follows:-

(3.) FAO No.2051 of 2003 is with reference to a claim for compensation by the claimant-Budhwanti, who was 65 years of age. She had an amputation below her knee and the Tribunal had granted compensation of Rs. 85,000.00. This Court had increased it to Rs. 1,70,000.00. In this case also there is a singular absence of any document setting out the actual medical expenses incurred for the treatment resulting in amputation of her leg. Considering the fact that the accident took place on 11.3.1998, I will provide for the cost of medicines at Rs. 5,000.00 and hospital charges at Rs. 15,000.00 including the surgeon's expenses. I will make a provision for attendant charges at Rs. 5,000.00; special diet at Rs. 5,000.00 and transportation a further sum of Rs. 5,000.00. The pain and suffering sustained by her must have been truly substantial and I will quantify the same at Rs. 25,000.00. The disability assessed at 55% must be taken as constituting a like percentage of loss of earning capacity. She was housewife, aged 65 years and if her domestic service must have been quantified in the year 1998 at Rs. 3,000.00, I will take the 55% loss as resulting in 55% loss of earning capacity. I will quantify the earning as Rs. 3,000x12 x55%x 7, the projected value of multiplier, equivalent to Rs. 1,38,600.00. The loss of amenities for a person who had suffered an amputation, having to be dependent on others, I will quantify at further sum of Rs. 50,000.00. The overall compensation will have to be worked out and it is tabulated as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_287_LAWS(P&H)4_2013_2.html</FRM>