JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The appellant complains that he had suffered multiple fractures. Had to get himself admitted in the Hospital on three occasions. Had undergone repeated surgeries. He is still suffering from 100% disability of the right arm. Despite that, he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs. 80,000/- only. He maintains that it is grossly inadequate. It is so ? A few facts may be noticed.
2. On December 4, 1985, the appellant was travelling by Car No. DHD-2551 from Delhi to Kaithal. When he reached near Panipat, truck No. JKR 4087 which was driven by respondent No. 2 hit the car. The occupants suffered injuries. The claimant was initially taken in an unconscious state to the Civil Hospital, Panipat. On December 5, 1985, he was shifted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. He had remained admitted in the Hospilal for different intervals of time on three occasions. He had suffered a permanent disability of the right arm. On these premises, the appellant had made a total claim of Rs. 2 lacs.
3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 viz. the owner and the driver of the vehicle had not put in appearance or filed any reply. The insurer had filed a written statement.
On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the following three issues :-
1. Whether injuries were caused to the petitioner by rash and negligent act of driving truck No. JKR-4087 by respondent ? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom ? OPR.
3. Relief.
4. On examination of the evidence, the Tribunal found that “the accident…. took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. JKR-4087 by its driver Mak-han Singh, respondent No. 2.” It further found that the claimant had remained admitted in the AH India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi from December 5, 1985 to December 14, 1985; from January 28, 1986 to February 4, 1986 and from November 10, 1986 to November 19, 1986. On each occasion, a discharge slip was issued. These discharge summaries have
been placed on record as Exhibits P6, P7 and P8. It further found that the claimant had suffered a fracture of the mandible and that “this right arm has become permanently disabled and disability is 100%.” Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant was “operated upon thrice in AIIMS, Delhi and for that purpose, he had to remain admitted for about one month in three instalments…” It further found that “due to injuries sustained in the accident right arm and right hand of the claimant have become functionless and this disability is permanent and 100% and for that he has got two operations already done…” Still further, on examination of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 80,000/-alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of the tiling of the claim petition upto the date of actual payment.
5. Mr. C.B. Goel. learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the compensation awarded to the appellant is grossly inadequate. He submits that in the circumstances of the case, the appellant should have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs as claimed by him.
6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
7. Admittedly, the appellant had suffered multiple injuries including a fracture of the mandible. It is also beyond dispute that his right arm and hand have suffered a total disability of 100%. Still further, it is clear that the appellant was about 35 years of age at the time of the accident in December 1985. He would live with the disability throughout his life. The surgery undergone by him has done him no good so far.
8. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it appears that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal was not proportionate to the suffering of the appellant. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of medical treatment and special diet. It has also awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/-on account of disability and loss in earning, The appellant had claimed that be had paid Rs. 600/- per month to the helper- Ramesh Kumar. The Tribunal has reduced the amount to Rs. 400/- per month. Without specifying any amount on account of pain and suffering, the Tribunal has assessed the total compensation at Rs. 80,000/-.
9. In the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence on record, it appears that the appellant is entitled to enhancement. He deserves to be compensated adequately for the disability as also for pain and suffering. Even the amount assessed by the Court in respect of the expenses docs not appear to be appropriate. Taking into account the relevant factors and more particularly the fact that the appellant has to live with a disability for the rest of his life, the total compensation is assessed at Rs. 1.50,000/-. He would be entitled to the payment of this amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
10. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the above
terms. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the insurer viz. respondent No. 3, there will no order as to costs.
11. Appeal allowed.