USHA RANI Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad vide Award dated 11.08.2000 disposed off 13 claim petitions arising out of the same very accident. The present appeal for enhancement of compensation is by claimant Usha Rani pertaining to her claim made in MVA Case No. 19 dated 27.04.1998 titled 'Smt. Usha Rani v. Joginder Singh and others', whereby she has been awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,13,000/- along with interest for the disablement she has suffered in the accident. Heard Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant claimant and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No. 3-National Insurance Company Limited.

(2.) Since the findings of the Tribunal as to the manner and mode of accident are not at all questioned/assailed and therefore, the findings which have never been challenged by the respondents qua issue No. 1 need not be gone into. The sole moot point revolves around quantum of compensation. The testimonies of PW-14 Dr. K.D. Soni and PW-22 Dr. Harvinder Chhabra along with that of PW-29 Dr. Kali Datta Dass have highlighted medical condition of the claimant. Though the board of doctors have issued disability certificate Ex. PYY, but sad enough, in spite of the proven fact that the claimant is totally bed ridden, they have failed to elaborate that the disability so opined by them to be 100 percent is of permanent nature. Since this fact has not been rebutted even by the respondents, needs to be considered and accepted. The own testimony of the claimant, whose statement has been recorded by the Local Commissioner so appointed by the Court, is stark reminder to her sad plight. It is borne out from her evidence that she remained admitted in the Civil Hospital, Palwal on the date of accident and thereafter was referred to Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad where she was treated for and subsequently had undergone treatment at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi. Apparently, from the documentary evidence, both the bones of her right foot, right shoulder and back bone stood fractured in this accident with injuries on her head, knees and eyes, and due to spinal cord injury at cervical C-5 & C-6 lower portion of her body has become paralytic; as a consequence of which she has been unable to move about and confined to her wheelchair. It is proved and even not disputed during the course of arguments by learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurer that the claimant was aged between 45-46 years at the time of her accident and she had two unmarried daughters though major and one married son and certainly in the light of fact that her husband too has died in this accident, one can easily comprehend the plight of the family and the future of the girls which certainly needs to be considered sympathetically commensurate with the object of the Act and the position of law as has been enunciated in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, 1995 110 PunLR 298 SC.

(3.) Since the claimant has been rendered paraplegic, she constantly would need the services of an attendant to look after her daily needs and for the running of her house-hold she needs to have an attendant to look-after various chores and while in bed ought to be looked after for her medical requirements from time to time. Thus, the appellant certainly is entitled to compensation under various heads qua the life long medical treatment, special diet, services of attendant and the pleasures of life and enjoyment of which she has been deprived of by this unfortunate incident. Though no amount of compensation can assuage the wrong done to her, but an effort is certainly being made to minimize the same. The appellant-claimant is thus entitled to compensation under the following heads: