N.K. Mody, J.@mdashBeing aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 2.12.2003, passed by Twelfth M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 35 of 2002, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,90,000, has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Short facts of the case are that on 20.7.2001 at about 12 noon the appellant who was aged 19 years, was going on her Scooty bearing registration No. MP 09-JM 8051, from Phooti Kothi Road to Chandan Nagar. At that time truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KB 7181, which was being driven by the respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently came from back side and hit Scooty of appellant with the result appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. A claim petition was filed in which it was alleged that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. It was also alleged that at the relevant time, respondent No. 2 was the owner of the offending truck and the same was insured with respondent No. 3. Claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the evidence and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,90,000, break-up of which is as under:
Towards medical expenses Rs. 75,000 Towards special diet Rs. 15,000 Towards expenses incurred on attendants Rs. 10,000 Towards permanent disability Rs. 50,000 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 40,000
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded is on the lower side. It is submitted that appellant sustained four fractures, i.e., in right clavicle bone, left femur bone, inferior pubic rami pelvis and right mandible.
4. It is submitted that the appellant completed her Secondary Examination in April 2001, in which the appellant secured 80 per cent marks. It is submitted that in Physics, Chemistry and Biology appellant was having distinction. At the time of accident appellant was preparing for appearance in PMT examination, as appellant was ambitious to complete M.B.B.S. course.
5. Learned Counsel further submits that appellant was admitted to Unique Hospital immediately after accident on 20.7.2001, where she remained till 22.8.2001. It is submitted that the appellant has submitted medical bills of Rs. 1,99,204.35, out of which Rs. 75,000 has been awarded. It is submitted that Exhs. PI23 to P 129 are the receipts whereby Rs. 70,000 were deposited as advance. The learned Tribunal has observed that the appellant has claimed this amount double. It is submitted that this observation of the learned Tribunal is not correct, as the appellant has submitted the receipts of advance payment, but not calculated the amount in Rs. 1,99,204.35. It is submitted that the appellant has submitted the bills and cash memos, which are Exhs. P21 to P122 and aggregate of which is Rs. 1,99,204.35 while receipts of Rs. 70,000 deposited in advance are Exhs. P123 toP129.
6. Apart from this learned Counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal has rejected a sum of Rs. 37,300 paid to the physiotherapist. It is submitted that appellant was under treatment of physiotherapist from 8.8.2001 to 14.8.2002, which is more than a year. It is submitted that Rs. 100 per day cannot be said to be on higher side paid to the physiotherapist, who was visiting the house of the appellant regularly. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has rejected the bill of Rs. 18,000 which is paid by the appellant vide Exh. P98 to Dr. B.M. Shrivastava, who has charged for operation fee and post-operation visits/dressings. It is submitted that a receipt has been issued by Jaws Institute and Research Center, Indore for cranio maxillofacial surgery. It is submitted that bills of Rs. 11,865 were submitted, whereby appellant purchased ayurvedic medicines for which cash memos are Exhs. P92 to P95. It is submitted that there was no justification for rejecting cash memos of ayurvedic medicines. Learned Counsel further submits that on account of permanent disability only Rs. 50,000 has been awarded by learned Tribunal while permanent disability has been assessed as 42 per cent. It is submitted that there was shortening of leg by 1/2" and there was restriction of movement in left patella. It is submitted that looking to the injuries and permanent disability the amount awarded is on lower side. It is also submitted that on account of accident the appellant could not appear in PMT examination in the year 2001 and was compelled to take drop. It is submitted that ultimately the appellant got admission after a year in BDS course, that too against payment seat. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is entitled for compensation towards loss of her studies for a period of 1 year and also the amount spent by appellant in taking admission in BDS course against payment seat, while the appellant was a meritorious candidate. It is also submitted that since there is shortening of leg, therefore, it will also affect the marriage prospects of the appellant, for which no amount is awarded by the learned Tribunal.
7. Mr. G.K. Neema, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of
8. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that amount awarded is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made.
9. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the injuries sustained by the appellant it is evident that in the accident which took place on 20.7.2001, appellant sustained grievous injuries. Appellant was hospitalised, there were multiple fractures and traction was given to appellant on both the legs, left leg was operated, bone grafting took place, screws were fitted, there was shortening of leg, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no doubt that on account of accident appellant had suffered a lot. It is also proved that appellant was meritorious candidate as she secured 80 per cent marks and distinction in three subjects in her Secondary Examination.
10. From perusal of the record it is evident that the learned Tribunal has deducted the following amount towards medical expenses:
Towards medical expenses for which evidence is produced as Exh. P23 to Exh. P122 Rs. 70,000 Towards cash memos of ayurvedic medicines Exhs. P92to P95 Rs. 11,865 Towards operation fee paid to Dr. B.M. Shrivastava, Exh. P98 Rs. 18,000 Towards amount paid to physiotherapist Rs. 37,300
11. Looking to the documents and also looking to the injuries, it appears that the learned Tribunal committed error in rejecting the amount spent by the appellant in her medical treatment. Treatment is being taken according to financial status of the patient. It appears that appellant belongs to a family which can be categorised as higher income group, therefore, it appears that the best possible treatment was given to the appellant. The appellant is further entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,37,165 towards medical expenses.
12. So far as permanent disability and loss of education for a period of one year and also towards marriage prospects being a girl of marriageable age, it appears that amount awarded is on lower side. If there is shortening of leg, then, the claim cannot be rejected or reduced on the ground that appellant can wear high heel sandals. The appellant has to do something to remove the shortcoming, while moving in society, but it does not mean that appellant is not entitled for compensation on that account. It appears that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000, in addition to what was awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be the appropriate amount of compensation on account of permanent disability, loss of marriage prospects and loss of education for one year. Thus appellant is further entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,37,165. Total amount of award comes to Rs. 4,27,165. Enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application.
13. With aforesaid modifications the appeal stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
