Delhi District Court
Shri Parkash L Vantnani S/O Shri Lekh Raj ... vs ) Sh. Avtar Singh S/O Sh.Jagat Singh on 1 August, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA:
JUDGE MACT : NEW DELHI
Suit NO: 61/06
In the matter of :-
Shri Parkash L Vantnani s/o Shri Lekh Raj Vantnani
r/o 225/F, MIG Flats, Greem Colony, near Cambridge
School, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi. .... Petitioners
Versus
1) Sh. Avtar Singh s/o Sh.Jagat Singh
r/o WZ 568, Village and post office Palam,
New Delhi.
2) Sh.Jessa Singh s/o Sh. Udham Singh,
r/o RZ 39-A, Palam Village, Raj Nagar
Mew Delhi.
3) United India Insurance Company,
19, Darya Ganj, Delhi
.... Respondents.
Date of filing of petition : 26.8.2000
Date of transfer to this court :13.11.2006
Judgment reserved on :26.07.2007
Date of final award : 01.8.2007
AWARD
Facts in brief are that Shri Prakash L Vantnani
aged 52 years suffered serious bodily injuries in a road accident on 22.2.2002. The accident took place while the petitioner was going from his residence towards Syndicate Bank Staff Trading 2 College, I.P. Estate, New Delhi for appearing in an interview for his promotion. The petitioner was going via Sikandra Road and when he reached the W point bridge, bus No.DL 1P 3143 allegedly being driven by shri Avtar Singh (R-1) in a rash or negligent manner hit the petitioner from back side and crushed the petitioner's legs and his scooter. The left knee and leg of the petitioner was extensive crushed which led to amputation of left leg above knee. The petitioner was immediately taken to RML hospital from where he was shifted to Apollo Hospital for treatment. The petitioner remained hospitalized till 23.3.2000. He was initially advised bed rest from 23.3.2000 to 23.6.2000 and was advised further bed rest for three months from 24.6.2000. The Apollo Hospital also advised for prosthesis for the left leg which was amputated above knee and therefore the petitioner contacted the Endolite India Ltd. for fixation of artificial limb. The petitioner has stated that he was unable to carry out his day to day functions and therefore he had to engage two attendants. The petitioner stated that he has suffered lot of physical pain and mental torture besides financial loss. The present petition has been filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 3 claiming 40,00,000/-.
2. Upon the petition being filed, summons were sent to respondents. R 1 did not file the written statement. However his statement was recorded by my learned predecessor. In his statement dated 7.9.2001 R-1 admitted that he was driving bus No.DL 1P 3143 at the time of accident. R-1 has stated that R-2 Shri Jessa Singh is the owner of the bus and it is insured with R-
3. R-2 did not appear and he was proceeded ex-parte. R-3 in its written statement though admitted that offending vehicle was duly insured with them, however mechanically denied all the averments made in the petition. Vide order dated 17.1.2002 an interim award in the sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted.
3. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 10.7.2002:-
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No.DL 1P 3143?
2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license?4
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount?
4. Relief.
4. Petitioner examined himself as PW 1 and tendered his evidence of way of affidavit. Petitioner also examined Shri Ashish Singh Prosthetist & Orthotist M/s Endolite Prosthetic and Orthotic Centre as PW 2. Dr.Gautam Jain Senior Prosthist Endolite India Ltd. has been examined as PW 3. The respondents did not lead any evidence.
5. I have heard learned Shri V.K.Kalra learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Bishan Singh learned counsel for Insurance Company. I have perused the record carefully and I propose my findings on the issues as follows:-
ISSUE NO. 1
6. The petitioner in his affidavit has deposed on oath that on 22.2.2000 at 9.30 a.m. he was proceeding from his residence towards Syndicate Bank Staff Training College, I.P.Estate for 5 interview for for his promotion on his scooter No.DAM 9999 . The petitioner stated that he was going via Sikandra Road and when reached the W Point Bridge, a bus bearing No.DL-1P 3143 being driven by R-1 in a rash and negligent manner hit his scooter from the back side and crushed his legs and his scooter. The petitioner stated that he suffered injuries on his both legs and his left knee and leg was extensively crushed and he sustained superficial friction burn on right thigh and leg. Petitioner stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R-1. The FIR was recorded on the statement of the petitioner himself. The petitioner stated that doctors had to conduct amputation of the left leg from Guillotine above knee on 22.2.2000. The permanent disability certificate has also been placed on recorded. R-1 merely put a suggestion to the petitioner that accident took place due to his own negligence, which was denied by the petitiner. Except this the petitioner was not at all cross examined regarding the rash or negligent act attributed to R-1. R-1 neither filed written statement nor entered in the witness box so as to prove that the accident took place on account of negligence of the petitioner himself. 6 The petitioner made a specific statement on oath. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement. Hence I hold that petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused by R-1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.DL 1P 3143 in a rash and negligent manner.
ISSUE NO. 2
7. The petitioner took a preliminary objection in their written statement that they shall not be liable to pay any compensation if it is found that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident. The Insurance Company has not brought any material on the record to indicate that R-1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license as on the day of accident. In these circumstances there is nothing on the record to suggest that R-1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the day of accident.
ISSUE No.3
8. The petitioner in his affidavit deposed on oath that immediately after the accident he was taken to RML hospital from where he was shifted to Apollo Hospital where amputation 7 of the left leg from Guillotine above knee was conducted on 22.2.2000. The petitioner remained admitted in Apollo Hospital till 23.3.2000. The discharge summary of Apollo hospital has been proved as Ex.PW1/4. The petitioner was advised 6 months bed rest in to intervals from 23.3.2000. The certified copy of Apollo hospital in this regard are Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6. The petitioner was also advised for prosthesis for the left leg which was amputed above knee. He was given the fitness certificate dated 20.9.2000 and the same is Ex.PW1/7. The petitioner admitted that he was reimbursed from his bank a sum of Rs.1,84,060/- which he had paid on account of medical and hospitalization bills. The Endolite India Ltd. gave the estimated expenditure including the expenses of his exercise as Rs.2,26,600/- vide estimate Ex.PW1/8. The petitioner paid the registration fee of Rs.250/- vide Ex.PW1/5 and also paid the above amount in installments. Petitioner stated that he started visiting Endolite India Ltd. daily for exercises which may extend further for the training to move on the artificial leg. The petitioner stated that he has already spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the rest of the amount is to be paid after the 8 final fitness of the artificial leg. The receipts of payment are Ex.PW1/10 to Ex.PW1/17. The letter dated 3.8.2000 for calling the petitioner for Gait Training is Ex.PW1/18. The petitioner stated that he still requires to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,16,6000/-. The petitioner stated that he was not able to pay the remaining amount on account of insufficient funds. The petitioner stated that in the year 2003 he has paid Rs.27,500/- towards the maintenance . Petitioner further stated that he has also been informed that per year Rs.27,000/- to Rs.30,000/- is required for the maintenance of artificial leg through out the life and the certificate to this effect is Ex.PW1/18B. The petitioner stated that he also engaged two attendants (each assistant for 12 hours working) till March 2002 and the salary was duly paid to them vide receipt Ex.PW1/19 to Ex.PW 1/42 and Ex.PW1/43 to Ex.PW1/66. Petitioner stated that on account of injuries suffered in the accident his promotion was delayed and future prospects has also been adversely affected. Petitioner stated that he had spent Rs.2500/- on conveyance and also spent a sum of Rs.13,980/- on conveyance. The petitioner stated that at the time of accident he was working as Special Assistant and was 9 drawing a salary of Rs.14,350/- p.m. The salary certificate is Ex.PW1/69. The petitioner stated that his promotion was delayed on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. Had the accident not been taken the petitioner would have been promoted in February 2000 itself. He further stated that on account of the injuries suffered in the accident he was promoted on 28.5.2003. The petitioner further stated that on account of delayed promotion, he suffered a loss of Rs.3,30,571/- . The promotion letter and the salary certificate after being promoted have been proved as Ex.PW1/70 and Ex.pW1/71. The petitioner also stated that he has also suffered loss of further promotion as for further promotion he is required to go outside Delhi and he is unable to go on account of handicap. The permanent disability certificate has been proved as Ex.PW1/72.
9. In the cross examination the petitioner stated that he has not been reimbursed in regard to the bills and cash memos placed along with his affidavit. The petitioner also admitted that for the period he remained on leave due to injuries suffered, no deductions were made from his salary and he was treated as on duty and leaves were granted to him as special 10 leave. In the cross examination the petitioner admitted that he has been promoted to the post of Assistant Manager in May 2004. However he stated that his promotion was due to him after interview in which he was to appear on the day of accident and since he could not appear in the interview, it could not be placed on record that he was due for promotion. The petitioner denied the suggestion that even he had not met with the accident he would not have been promoted before May 2004. The petitioner denied the suggestion that vouchers regarding payment made to the attendant are false. It also came in the cross examination that the wife of the petitioner took voluntary retirement from service either in 2000 or end of 2001 due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The petitioner denied the suggestion that he does not require treatment from Endolite and he got prepared a fake estimate.
10. Shri Ashish Singh (PW2) proved the receipts Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.pW1/17-A. He also proved the letters Ex.PW1/18-A and Ex.PW1/18-B. PW 2 also placed on record original Measurement Form and the components/materials consumed so far on the advise of the experts and the same is 11 proved as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. In the cross examination PW 2 stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about this case and he had made this statement on the basis of the documents.
11. Dr.Gautam Jain Senior Prosthist, (PW3) stated that measurement form Ex.PW2/A was prepared by him in his own handwriting. PW 3 also proved the job card as Ex.PW2/B which he stated that it is partly written by him and some other details were written by Store Executive Mr.Sahu whose handwriting and signatures he identified. He stated that petitioner is still under treatment of their institution. In cross examination PW 3 stated that the patient was referred to them by Apollo Hospital. The witness denied the suggest that he has prepared a forged document in order to help the petitioner.
12. The provisions of Motor Vehicle Act envisage grant of just and fair compensation. The justness is determined on the peculiar facts of each case. There cannot be a rigid mechanical formula for determining the compensation. It has been held in the catena of judgments that in cases involving 12 permanent disability, compensation payable is higher than in fatal cases, since its claimant himself who bears the fruit of compensation and he has to undergo the agony and trauma of the accident through out his remaining life. It goes without saying that the extent of compensation depends upon the extent of disablement, its duration and its impact on the lives of the victim. Hon'ble Justice Mr.Pradeep Nandrajog in MAC Appeal No.228/2006 titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors. while dealing with an appeal in which the injured who was aged 23 years and had suffered permanent disability of 60% on account of amputation of his right leg below knee inter-alia held as under:-
".... The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the court and Tribunal should make a honest and 13 serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages.
".... The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the court should award to injured person such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been i if he had not sustained the injuries."
13. In this case Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nandrajog discussed in detail the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to be awarded to the petitioner. The tribunal in this case had awarded a sum of Rs.9,39045/- which was upheld by the appellate court. The Hon'ble court while dealing with the case cited certain land marked judgments which I am privileged to re-produce here for my benefit.
B.N.Kumar vs. DTC 118 (2005) DLT 36 In said case, injured sustained crush injuries on 14 his right leg leading to its amputation above knee in a road accident on 5th November 1987. He suffered a permanent disability of 85%. Noting various judgments wherein Courts had awarded Rs.3,00,000/- under the head non- pecuniary damages, our own Hon'ble High Court awarded Rs.75,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.2,00,000/- for continuing disability suffered by him. Thus, a total of Rs.2,75,000/- was awarded under this head.
(ii) Fakkirappa vs. Yallawwa & Anr. 2004 ACJ 141 In said case, a a minor male child sustained grievous injury in a road accident which occurred on 8.5.2000 resulting in amputation of his left leg below knee. Considering the gravity of injury suffered by the injured, Division Bench of Karnataka High Court awarded following compensation under the head 'non-pecuniary damages':-
1) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/-
2) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.1,00,000/-
3) Loss of marriage prospects : Rs.50,000/-
4) Damages for amputation of leg
below knee : Rs.1,50,000/-
15
5) Loss of expectation of life : Rs.50,000/-
Total : Rs.4,00,000/-
iii) K.Shankar vs. Pallavan TransportCorporation 2001 ACJ 488 In said case, inured sustained serious injuries on his right leg in an accident on 14.21.1989. His right leg was amputated and he suffered permanent disability of 80%. A learned Single Judge of Madras High Court awarded the following compensation under the head 'non- pecuniary damages'
1) For permanent disability : Rs.80,000/-
2) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/-
3) Loss of expectation of life and proper marital alliance: Rs.50,000/-
4) For mental agony Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.2,80,000/-
iv) M.Jagannathan vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation, 1999 ACJ 366 In said case, injured aged 45 years sustained injuries in an accident on 21.6.1990. The injury sustained by the injured resulted in the amputation of his left leg above the knee. Division Bench of Madras High Court 16 awarded following compensation under the head 'non pecuniary damages":-
1) Pain and suffering : Rs.1,00,000/-
2)Compensation for continuing
permanent disability : Rs.2,00,000/-
3) Mental agony, torture and
humiliation because of
amputation : Rs.75,000/-
Total : Rs.3,75,000/-
(v) Bhagwan Singh Meena vs. Jai Kishan Tiwari,
1999 ACJ 1200
In said case, the injured sustained severe and serious injuries on account of the road accident and his right leg was amputated. A learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head non-pecuniary damages.
vi) Dr.Gop Ramchandani vs. Onkar Singh & Ors.
1993 ACJ 577 In said case, in an accident which had occurred on 17.12.1985, injured sustained injuries because of which his left leg was amputated resulting in 50% permanent disability. A Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court 17 awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head 'non pecuniary damages. Break-up of the compensation under the said head is as under:-
i) Physical and mental agony : Rs.1,00,000/-
ii) Permanent disability : Rs.1,00,000/-
iii)Loss of social life and loss
in profession : Rs.1,00,000/-
Total : Rs.3,00,000/-
(vii)Jitendra Singh vs. Islam 1998 ACJ 1301 In said case, in an accident which had occurred on 14.02.1992, injured sustained injuries because of which his left leg was amputated resulting in 55% permanent disability. A single Judge of Rajasthan High Court awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head 'non-pecuniary damages'.
( viii) Iranna vs. Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla & Anr. 2004 ACJ 1396 In said case, on 19.4.2000, injured aged 7 years met with an accident. Due to the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of his 18 left leg below knee. Tribunal awarded following compensation to him under the head 'non pecuniary damages':-
i) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/-
ii) Loss of amenities,
happiness, frustration : Rs.1,00,000/-
iii)Loss of marriage prospects: Rs.50,000/-
iv)Amputation of leg below knee and knee dis-
atriculation : Rs.1,50,000/-
Total : Rs.3,50,000/-
19
14. Petitioner has admitted that he has already been reimbursed by his department for the expenses made on medicine and medical treatment. The petitioner has primarily claimed the compensation on account of the expenditure made by him on implantation of artificial limb and the expenditure made on attendants, conveyance and special diet. The petitioner has also claimed compensation on account of his delayed promotion. Besides the petitioner is also entitled to be compensated for pain and suffering, permanent disability and loss of enjoyment and amenity of pleasures of life.
15. The petitioner has stated that on account of injuries suffered in the accident his promotion got delayed for more than 3 years. He stated that had he not met with the accident, he would have been promoted in February 2000 itself and only on account of the injuries suffered in the accident he was promoted on 28.5.2003. However in this regard the petitioner has not examined any official from his bank/department so as to prove that the promotion was delayed only on account of injuries suffered in the accident. The perusal of the letter Ex.PW1/70 20 dated 28.2.2003 also does not indicate any such thing that promotion was delayed on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. In the absence of any specific material on the record it cannot be held that the promotion was delayed on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. The petitioner could not join his duties for around 6 months. However he has stated in his affidavit that for this period he was considered to be on duty and was granted special leave. It may be mentioned here that an employee is entitled to be compensated for the leaves even if no deduction has been made on this account from his department because ultimately the leaves accumulated by him gets encashed at the time of superannuation. However in this case the petitioner has stated that he was considered to be on duty and therefore I consider that no compensation can be granted on this account also.
16. Now coming to the attendant charges - the petitioner has stated that he employed two attendants till March 2002 namely Sh.Manoj and Sh.Ek Bahadur. The receipts purported to have been executed by said Shri Manoj are Ex.PW1/22 to Ex.PW1/42. As per receipts the total amount paid to attendant 21 Manoj was Rs.73,950/-. Similarly the receipt purported to have been executed by Ek Bahadur are Ex.PW1/43 to Ex.PW1/66 as per which he was paid Rs.72350/-. However the petitioner has not examined said Shri Manoj and Sh.Ek Bahadur. He simply made a statement that he employed both of these attendants as he was unable to carry out his day to day work. In the event of these attendants being not examined by the petitioner in the court, I consider that it is unsafe to rely upon the receipts being furnished by the petitioner. However I consider that the nature of injuries were such that the petitioner must have employed an attendant for this period. I consider that it would be just and fair if a compensation is granted to the petitioner on account of expenditure made on one attendant for the period March 2000 to March 2002 on the minimum wages as on March 2002. The minimum wages of an unskilled employ in March 2002 was Rs.2668/-. Thus compensation on account of expenditure attendant made on attendant comes to Rs.2668 x 24 = Rs.64032/-
17. In regard to the evidence being led by the petitioner of implanting of artificial limb I consider that petitioner has led a 22 reliable evidence to the effect that the cost of the artificial limb is Rs.2,26,000/-. The petitioner has duly proved on record the payment made to Endolite India Ltd. from time to time as Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/17-A. The petitioner has also proved on record that the future expenses are also involved because of bodily changes and system also needs change after some time. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.13,980/- and Rs.2500/- on account of conveyance expenses. In view of the fact that petitioner was required to visit M/s Endolite India Ltd. for gait training, I consider that the amount claimed by the petitioner is just and fair.
18. The law requires grant of "just" and "fair" compensation. In the Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shettry and another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4172 , it was inter-alia held as under:-
" Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in S.168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be 'Just' . It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily 23 injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance to the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for the mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that compensation must be 'Just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be 'just' compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of 24 damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of 'Just' compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression 'which appears to it to be just' a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness . The expression 'just' denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident throughout his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities of life the features like his age, marital 25 status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life has to be reckoned."
19. The compensation in the injury case cannot be granted on the mathematical precision. Such compensation is granted taking into account the nature of injury, period of treatment, pain and sufferings and other surrounding circumstances. The humanitarian approach is required while determining the amount of compensation in such cases. However, the Tribunal is required to maintain a balanced approach while determining the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation should neither be a pittance nor a bonanza. The compensation in the injury cases are granted under the following heads:
1. Compensation on account of pain and sufferings;
2. Compensation on account of medicines, medical treatment, special diet and conveyance;
3. Compensation on account of permanent disability; and
4. Compensation for loss of enjoyment and amenity of life.
1. Compensation for pain and sufferings 26
20. Compensation under this head is granted taking into consideration the nature of injury, period of hospitalisation and period of treatment. The petitioner has suffered amputation. He also remained hospitalized from 22.2.2000 to 23.3.2000. I consider that taking on account nature of injuries and the period of hospitalization, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head shall meet the end of the justice.
2. Compensation on account of medicines, medical treatment, special diet and conveyance
21. Compensation under this head is granted for actual expenses made by the petitioner on medicines, special diet and conveyance. The petitioner has already been reimbursed for the medical bills. However I consider that a sum of Rs.13980 + 2500 = Rs.16480/- on account of conveyance shall be just and fair. In addition to it a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of special diet shall meet the ends of justice.
As I have discussed above the petitioner has also proved on record that he got fixed the artificial limb from Endolite India Ltd. for which he was required to pay a sum of Rs.2,26000/- The petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000 and he has 27 stated that he is required to pay remaining sum of money to Endolite India Ltd. The petitioner also claimed a compensation on account of future expenses. In Nagappa vs. Gurdial 2003 ACJ 12 the Apex Court after noting that artificial leg implanted on the leg of the injured will have to be changed every two to three years, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to meet the said future expenses. I consider that following this president , a sum of Rs.One Lac can also be awarded to the petitioner for future expenses . Therefore a sum of Rs.16480/- on account of conveyance + Rs.5000/- on account of special diet + Rs.2,26,000/- on account of artificial limb + 1,00,000/- on future expenses can be awarded to the petitioner. Besides this as I have discussed above a sum of Rs.64032/- is also tobe awarded on account of attendant. Thus total compensation comes to be Rs.4,11,512/-.
3) Compensation on account of permanent disability and loss of income:-
22. Permanent disability is not a purely medical. condition. A person is permanently disabled if his actual or presumed capability to 28 engage in gainful activity is reduced. A person can also be termed as permanently disabled if there is no expectation of any fundamental or marked change in the future. In Sourab Kumar Shukla vs. Hukum Chand, 1998 ACJ 523 (MP) it was observed that :
" permanent disability applies to permanent damage or to loss of use of some part of the body after the stage of maximum improvement from Orthopedic or other medical treatment has been reached and the condition is stationary."
In Piar Chand vs. Subhash Chander 1985 ACJ 389 Delhi it was observed that:
"Damages in cases of bodily injuries are awarded commensurate with the extent, gravity and duration of the injury. The test in such case is to ask as to whether physical integrity of the injured is broken, and if so, whether the same is of a temporary or a permanent nature and thirdly, what impact, that is to what will be reflected in the earning capacity of the injured"
In K. Narasimha Murthy Vs Manager, Oriental Insurance Company limited, 2004 ACJ 1109 it has been held as under:- 29
"The permanent disability sustained by the appellant, undeniably, would come in the way of the appellant enjoying his normal and full life. Appellant has become very much dependent upon others even for maintaining his physical mobility. The appellant's freedom of movement is drastically impaired and arrested. On account of the injuries sustained by him, he is denied enjoyment and pleasures of life including normal sex life. Appellant has to live rest of his life with frustration,disappointment,unhappiness, discomfort and inconvenience. On the head of damages for deprivation of amenities the measure of damages should primarily be the measure of deprivation of natural gifts, faculties and capabilities of a man and to what extent the injured person has been deprived of human experience, both physical and mental. Therefore, the court while assessing the damages for deprivation, duration of the deprivation and the degree of awareness of the deprivation."
23. Petitioner has suffered permanent disability. It must have caused lot of distress pain and agony to the petitioner. I consider that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of permanent disability and disfigurement of the body shall meet the ends of justice. I consider that the petitioner has not been able to prove that there was any loss of income on account of permanent 30 disability and therefore no compensation can be awarded under this head.
4. Compensation for loss of enjoyment and amenity.
24. Every human being is entitled to bodily integrity and any injury on the body takes away such right of enjoyment of the life. I consider that taking on account the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head shall meet the ends of justice.
Thus Compensation awarded as follows:
Pain & sufferings : 1,00,000/-
Special diet : 5,000/-
Conveyance : 16,480/
Attendant
(from March 2000 to March 2002) : 64,032/-
as per minimum wages 2002 i.e Rs.2668
x 24
cost of artificial limb in future expenses : 3,26,000/- physical disfigurement /mental agony : 1,00,000/- Loss of enjoyment and amenity : 1,00,000/-
Total :Rs.7,11,512/- Relief
25. In view of the discussion made herein above, I consider and hereby pass an award in the sum of Rs.7,11,512/- 31 which I consider to be just and fair as on the date of accident. The petitioner is also entitled for interest at the rate of 7 % p.a. on account of the forbearance and detention of money from the date of filing of the petition till realization. R-1 to R-3 are jointly and severally liable. However R-3 being the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest within 30 days. Out of the awarded amount, let a sum of Rs.5 lacs be kept in Monthly Income Saving Scheme for a period of 6 years Copy of the award be supplied to both the parties. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Dated on 1.8.2007 (DINESH KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE:MACT/NEW Delhi