Madhya Pradesh High Court
Savitri Sharma And Ors. vs Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport ... on 16 December, 1992
Equivalent citations: II(1993)ACC141, 1993ACJ714
Author: D.M. Dharmadhikari
Bench: D.M. Dharmadhikari
JUDGMENT R.P. Awasthy, J.
1. It is a claimant's appeal claiming enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 45 of 1983 by award dated 31.7.1989 by Mrs. Sushma Shrivastava, Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur. By virtue of the impugned award the claimant, a housewife aged about twenty-six years at the time of the accident, has been awarded Rs. 12,000/- by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the said amount is paid to the claimant.
2. From the testimony given by Dr. Ravi Agarwal, it is fully established that the claimant Savitri Sharma lost vision of her left eye.
3. The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,000/- by way of compensation on the score of the permanent disability incurred by the claimant.
4. It has been argued for the claimant that merely because the claimant could not or did not produce any bills or vouchers of purchasing medicines, etc. and the expenditure incurred in getting herself medically treated, her claim on the said score should not have been disallowed. Further, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal did not award any amount as compensation for physical pain and mental agony suffered by the claimant on account of injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the amount of award should be enhanced to an extent of Rs. 40 to 50 thousand.
5. In reply it has been submitted for the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 that since the husband of the claimant was in Government employment and has not filed a single document pertaining to the expenditure incurred in medical treatment of the claimant, it has to be assumed that the claimant got reimbursement of the said expenditure incurred in her medical treatment from the Government department in which her husband is serving. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in not granting any amount by way of compensation towards the alleged medical expenditure. Obviously, the claimant could not have claimed and cannot claim the said amount repeatedly from the two sources.
6. It has further to be seen that the claimant is a housewife and there is no question of any loss of earning to her. It could not be proved that on account of the claimant incurring a permanent disability, she had or has to engage any servant. When comparable cases were not available, it was open for the Tribunal to adopt the quantum of compensation which is awardable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It has been argued for non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 that according to the Schedule given in the Workmen's Compensation Act, only Rs. 10,000/- were awardable for the loss of vision in the left eye.
7. In our opinion the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant deserves to be enhanced. It is true that presumption is that in all its probabilities the husband of the claimant claimed reimbursement of the expenditure inclined in getting his wife medically treated. Nevertheless, it is also a fact of common experience and knowledge that a Government employee does not get full reimbursement regarding the expenditure incurred in medical treatment of the employee or his/her dependant. It has also to be seen that the claimant had to g6 to Delhi for getting medical treatment and an outdoor ticket of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Science, New Delhi, Exh. P-5, has been filed in the present case. Considering the said circumstances, in the opinion of this court Rs. 3,000/- should have been awarded towards that expenditure which though incurred in the medical treatment of the claimant, yet was not reimbursed.
8. It has already been observed that from the medical evidence available on record it was established that the claimant lost vision of her left eye. Looking to the said nature of injury in the opinion of this court Rs. 10,000 should have been awarded by way of compensation for physical pain and mental agony suffered by the claimant. In the impugned award only Rs. 12,000/- have been awarded for the permanent physical disability incurred by the claimant.
9. While enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- this court has considered Nagappaiah v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1982 ACJ 176 (Kamataka), in which Rs. 20,000/- were awarded for loss of earning and Rs. 10,000/- were awarded for pain and suffering and loss of limb. In this authority loss of left eye was assessed at 40 per cent of permanent disability incurred by the claimant. In Bhupendra Kumar Kohli v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission 1981 ACJ 385 (Gujarat), Rs. 25,000/- were awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, Rs. 43,200/- were awarded for loss of earning capacity and Rs. 1,800/- for getting artificial eye. Thus, a total amount. 70,000/- was awarded by way of compensation to a welder claimant, aged about 30 years, who was earning Rs. 600/- p.m. for loss of his right eye. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Niranjan Ambalal Patel 1981 ACJ 53 (Gujarat), the award of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- for loss of vision of right eye of a student who was studying in II year B.Com. In Rattan Lal Mehta v. Rajender Kapoor 1989 ACJ 746 (Delhi), Rs. 66,200/- were awarded to the claimant getting a salary of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. while working in the Swiss Embassy for loss of his right eye.
10. While fixing the said amount of compensation this court has taken into consideration that the claimant is a housewife who was not earning any amount and, therefore, the question of loss of earning did not arise in the present case.
11. Consequently, the amount of award is enhanced from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 25,000. The non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay jointly and severally the remaining and additional amount of Rs. 13,000/- to the claimant Savitri Sharma, wife of B.R. Sharma, aged about 26 years (at the time of presentation of the petition in the year 1982) and shall also pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the said amount of Rs. 13,000/- from the date of this award of the appellate court till the said amount is paid to the claimant.
12. The non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 shall also bear jointly and severally corresponding costs of the claimant of the present appeal and shall pay Rs. 500/- as counsel's fee, if certified.