NARESH KUMAR Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject of lis: claim for injuries

(2.) WHILE we have come by a definite scales of compensation for death with reference to the manner of assessment of income with provisions of increase of salary and the deductions to be made for personal expenses and the multiplier to be adopted with variance in the recent years only with reference to the compensation payable for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss to estate, the assessment of compensation for injuries are by and large arbitrary and follow no objective criteria. When the Tribunal makes an appraisal for compensation, it should take into account all the following details: (i) age; (ii) employment/avocation and income; (iii) period of hospitalisation and details such as (a) cost of medicines; (b) hospitalisation charges, including consultation charges, room rent, etc; (c) attendant charges; (d) special diet and (e) expenses for future hospitalisation and treatment, including physiotherapy; (iv) nature of injuries, such as abrasions, cut injuries, crush injuries, fractures; (v) loss of income during the period of treatment and (vi) transportation. While collecting the details, the following may be borne in mind. It shall detail the period of hospitalization as inpatient in hospital and the period of domiciliary rest and recuperation; i.e., when the patient is still advised full bed rest at home when he/she cannot resume duty and carry on the normal activities for living. This is essential for determination of loss of income, which is a distinct head. Medical bills are also to be seen as an item of expenditure which can be proved with greater certainty by production of bills. It may not be necessary to secure the presence of a chemist to speak about the genuineness. The Tribunal can look for the appropriate prescriptions and the purchase of medicines that have been made to ascertain to itself that bills produced are genuine. If there is also a future medical expenditure that has to be incurred such as removal of implants, continuance of physiotherapy, periodical visits to be made in future or constant monitoring to prevent any further deterioration, appropriate medical evidence must be brought. It is most desirable that the doctor who his brought before the Court is also asked appropriate questions to elicit the above details. Transportation again is a head of claim where very poor evidence is brought. If the person must be compelled to travel by private car or a taxi, it is essential to at least give a distance and the likely charges that are incurred for even if there are no vouchers for payment of amounts to the taxi operator. It shall become possible for a Tribunal or appellate forum to make some assumption that has a basis to reality.

(3.) AMONGST the non -pecuniary heads pain and suffering or loss of amenities due to disability have all obtained different approaches from various Courts. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and others, 2011 1 SCC 343provides a theoretical basis for the manner of assessment of compensation for injuries that brings out the distinction between the percentage of disability and the loss of earning capacity. The judgment also brings out an illustration of how a disability percentage qua particular limb must ultimately be assessed qua the whole body in order that the compensation is rightfully assessed to determine the extent of disability that could rob a person of the amenities of life. There have been also several judgments which have spelt out the need for assessing compensation under the distinct heads provided under the Act.