KRISHNA BEHARI SRIVASTAVA Vs. GAJANAND & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant Krishna Behari Srivastava who sustained 90% disability in a road accident involving the jeep insured by respondent-insurance company. The claimant was riding the motor cycle when he was hit by the jeep from behind. He sustained a severe head injury and was hospitalised in MBS Hospital, Kota. He was aged 51 years at that time. A claim petition was filed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.57,90,000. The permanent disability of the appellant was proved to be 90% and accepting that disability, the Tribunal has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000 for the permanent disability, Rs.2,50,000 for actual medical expenses and nutritious diet etc., Rs.37,000 was additionally awarded for transportation and expenses of attendant and a sum of Rs.1,00,000 was awarded on the head of future treatment. Thus a total of Rs.8,87,000 was awarded as compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal.

(2.) Shri Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant at the relevant time was a distributor by the name of Unipharma Distributor, Kota. He was earlier Technical Officer in J.K. Factory. His basic pay in that factory as on 30.6.1997 was Rs.7,715/- as per certificate dated 4.10.1999 and with that he used to receive various allowances. The last monthly salary credited to his account was Rs.10,600 as was proved from the pay slip of May, 1997. However, the said factory was later on closed down and it was thereafter that the appellant started the business by obtaining the agency in the name of Unipharma Distributors from a reputed pharmaceutical company-UHD Ltd. The agreement with the company-U.H.D. Ltd. Ex.504 was produced in evidence to prove this fact. On account of the fact that the appellant has been completely rendered disabled and is neither able to sit properly, nor walk and he lost all his mental fitness inasmuch as he could not recognise even his wife and other family members and even though he was subjected to various surgeries, but his situation has not improved any further, the award of lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000, rather than computing the compensation by applying the structured formula, was not proper. The Tribunal ought to have computed compensation by applying the multiplier method accepting the appellant to be 100% disabled. It was argued that wife of the appellant was working as Invigilator in prestigious Allen Coaching Institute situated at Kota had to give up her job and even that income has also been lost due to the condition of the appellant. The amount of Rs.37,000 awarded cumulatively for expenses of attendant and transportation for the period of his hospitalisation of that time, is highly insignificant as compared to the care and time that would be required to attend the appellant by his wife and other family members for rest of his life or will have to spent to arrange for a regular attendant for him. Nothing has been awarded on the heading of pain and suffering, although a sum of Rs.2,50,000 has been awarded cumulatively for medical expenses, nutritious diet etc. however, for which medical bills/receipts worth Rs.1,99,270 was produced. It was also proved before the Tribunal that the appellant would be subjected to further surgery and that for grafting the important bone on the skull, which itself would cost Rs.85,000, yet only a sum of Rs.1,00,000 has been awarded for future treatment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that appellant has sustained total seven injuries, out of which four are grievous and three are simple in nature, however, nothing has been awarded for these injuries. It is therefore prayed that the compensation awarded to the appellant deserves to be enhanced suitably.