Punjab-Haryana High Court
Goyam Jain Son Of Shri Anil Bandhu Jain ... vs Kewal Singh Arora Son Of Sh. Trilok Chand ... on 12 April, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.765 of 1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.765 of 1995
Date of Decision. 12.04.2013
Goyam Jain son of Shri Anil Bandhu Jain (minor) through his next friend,
natural father Shri Anil Bandhu Jain son of Padam Parkash Jain, resident
of House No.2355, Urban Estate, Karnal .....Appellant
Versus
Kewal Singh Arora son of Sh. Trilok Chand and another
.......Respondents
Present: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. V. Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The appeal is at the instance of the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for injuries suffered in motor accident. It was stated on behalf of the claimant that head injury suffered by the claimant, who was a minor at the time of the accident, had resulted in 100% permanent disability. Dr. J.C. Bathla, PW5 had treated the claimant in his clinic as indoor patient from 13.01.1993 to 20.01.1993 and he had given evidence to the effect that the claimant had suffered secondary dementia (mental retardation) with epileptic fits on account of head injury. He further deposed that the claimant had suffered behavioural changes, was uncooperative, disturbed in sleep and would not go to toilet. He cannot remove his own clothes and he cannot eat with spoon and hence FAO No.765 of 1995 -2- has to be fed by another person. He had given evidence to the effect that chances of complete recovery were very remote. He had also clarified that the patient was not mentally retarded at birth.
2. PW-6, Dr. Subhash Chander Bhargav was Reader of the Department of Psychiatry of Medical College Hospital at Rohtak and he also deposed that the patient was poorly cooperative and poorly communicative. The CT scan of brain showed fracture of frontal bone plate right side and loss of cerebral brain matter. Dr. N.K. Sharma , Head of the Department, Neuro Surgery had also given a report which was exhibited as Ex.PW6/B and he had stated that there was no possibility of education and it was not possible for the child to lead an independent life in view of the deformities, mental retardation and suffering from epileptic fits. PW4, the father had given evidence about the entire history of how he took the child to the Civil Hospital at Karnal, later to PGI Chandigarh, still later at Neeraj Clinic at Rishikesh and further treatment given to the child at Medical College and Hospital at Rohtak, AIMS Delhi, treatment under Dr. Bathla and homeopathic treatment by Dr. Nirmal Singh. He also taken opinion of doctors for giving fresh treatment to the child in USA. He gave evidence to the effect that he spent ` 77,000/- for the treatment of the child.
3. On the evidence given by on behalf of the claimant, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as follows:-
Medical expenses - ` 70,000/-
Transportation to various hospitals - ` 20,100/-
Special diet - ` 27,000/-
Future medical expenses - ` 1,50,000/-
Pain and suffering and disability - ` .1,00,000/-
Attendant charges - ` 1,00,000/-
Total - ` 4,67,100
FAO No.765 of 1995 -3-
4. I find the assessment to be grossly inadequate. The
transportation charges have been assessed grossly low. Apart from the medical expenses, which it has provided at ` 70,000/- in the manner spoken to by the petitioner, it has only added a sum of ` 21,100/- for the transportation to several places. I will raise the provision for transportation to ` 50,000/-. The Tribunal has provided ` 1 lac for pain and suffering and disability. I will enhance the pain and suffering to another ` 1 lac. The boy was a minor and I will take the notional income at ` 2500/- and apply multiplier of 18 and find the loss of earning capacity at ` 5,40,000/-. I would take the average expenditure for an attendant at ` 1000/- per month and would apply a multiplier of 18, which would work out to ` 2,16,000/-, which would mean an additional amount of ` 1,16,000/-. For provision for future medical expenses, I will provide for a further sum of ` 1 lac. This will make an additional amount of ` 8,85,900/-, which I will round off to ` 8,86,000/-. The amount in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal will attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The claimant, who was a minor, must have become a major by now and all the payments shall be, therefore, released only to the person, who is lawfully appointed guardian.
5. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 12, 2013 Pankaj*