Delhi High Court
V. Mepherson vs Shiv Charan Singh on 7 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: I(1997)ACC638, 1998ACJ601, 1996(39)DRJ434, 1997RLR182
JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.
(1) Shiv Charan, injured filed cross objections claiming therein that he suffered serious injuries on account of accident caused to him. Injuries were, compound fracture of both bones middle third leg, colle's fracture of right side fore-arm fracture of 5th and 6th ribs and multiple wounds in scalp and multiple injuries all over the body. He spent nearly Rs.l0,000.00 on treatment, medicines, special diet, conveyance, attendant etc. He also claimed future expenses to be incurred on recovery and support. This made a total claim of Rs.One lac as per his compensation claimed. The Motor Accident Claims Tri- bunal (In short the Tribunal) by the impugned award granted him only Rs.7,110.00 with costs and interest. This included the expenses on medicine, special diet, fees of the doctor, petrol charges and damages. The grievance of the objector had been, that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the expenses incurred by him and the damages awarded was too inadequate in law.
(2) These objections were contested by the appellant inter alia, on the ground that so far as the claim on account of reimbursement of expenses on medicine, special diet, conveyance and doctor's fees are concerned no proof was laid before the Court. The Tribunal still awarded the amounts on presumption. Similarly, general damages were assessed by the Court to be Rs.5,000.00 . This Court now in cross objections cannot enhance damages because the objector has since expired during the pendency of this appeal. The personal damages are not inheritable. Hence the right to sue enhanced damages does not survive after the death of the injured. In this regard counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in re Sampati Lal & Ors. V. Hari Singh and Ors. , which was also a case under the Motor Vehicle Act.. In that case claimant died during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court opined that the claim on account of personal damages did not survive in view of Section 306 of the Successions Act. Only claim relating to loss to the estate did survive. In the present case admittedly, the death was not due to the accident which was caused on 18th september,1973. The objector died during the pendency of the appeal on 17th August,1983. Hence, Mr.Tarun Johri's contention that the claim for enhancement of general damages after the death of the objector did not survive appears to be right. As regards other claims regarding medical expenses expenses on special diet, doctor's fees and conveyance, Mr.Johri contended even those are also personal in nature, therefore, the objection petition is not maintainable after the death of the injured.
(3) So far as the contention of Mr.Tarun Johri that claim for damages which was on account of suffering and pain suffered by the deceased, to my mind, it would abet on the death of the injured. But so far as other claims under other heads those would not come to an end on the death of the objector. The right to sue would survive even on the death of the objector. As a matter of fact claim on account of special diet, medicine, conveyance etc. are such which related to the loss of the property, therefore, right to sue would not abet on the death of the objector. It would survive to his legal heirs as held by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Joti Ram and Ors. V. Chaman Lal and Ors. .
(4) Now the question for consideration is whether the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence placed before him was justified in awarding the amount on other heads as he did. In this regard reference can be had to the evidence of Dr.Sardar Singh, Orthopaedic Specialist, Irwin Hospital. He appearing as PW-1 admitted that there was a compound fracture of both bone left leg and fracture of two ribs on the right side. There was an open wound in the skull. He also testified that the injured was advised high protein diet containing eggs, panir, cheese for a period of three months. In view of the compound injuries he was prescribed broad spectrum antibiotics. Appearing as his own witness, injured Shiv Charan Singh, (Public Witness -4) testified that he spent Rs.10,000.00 to Rs.12,000.00 on his treatment i.e. for purchase of medicines, protein diet, etc. Major amount of this was incurred by Mr.R.C.Chauhan (Public Witness -5) and balance by his daughter-in-law. Sh.R.C.Chauhan, PW-5, appearing for injured stated that he spent about Rs.4,000.00 to Rs.5,000.00 on the treatment of the injured. Part of this amount was spent by him and part was spent by injured's daughter-in-law. This amount was spent in the period of six months. When subjected to cross examination, he could not furnish the details of the expenses incurred by him. He had not maintained any account for the same, nor he could furnish the details on what heads he spent the amount. Injured as PW-4 when subjected to cross examination testified that Mr.Chauhan told him that he spent Rs.6,000.00 to Rs.7,000.00 whereas PW-5 Mr.Chauhan said he spent Rs.4,000.00 . This contradiction remained unsolved. This shows neither PW-4 nor PW-5 were aware how much amount was spent on the treatment of PW-4. The daughter-in-law who is alleged to have incurred the balance amount did not step into the witness box. Hence no reliance could be placed on her testimony. In view of this contradictory testimonies, the' Tribunal, to my mind rightly concluded that the injured had failed to furnish the details about his expenses. In the absence of any evidence the Tribunal drew his own presumption and awarded Rs.900.00 for medicine, Rs.900.00 on diet and Rs.3,00.00 for doctor's fee beside conveyance charges. From the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 which have been discussed-above, I am in agreement with the conclusion of the Tribunal that they inflated the claim of the injured. Even though no evidence was placed on record regarding actual amount spent on these heads still the Tribunal awarded the amounts keeping in view the approximate expenditure and the sympathetic attitude. I see no reason to disagree with the findings of the Tribunal.
(5) There is no quarrel with the proposition which Mr.Manmohan Singh propound that even if the bill or vouchers were not produced, the fact remained that the injured got treatment for 3 to 4 months, therefore, was entitled to compensation. On this proposition there is no quarrel. But some prima facie proof was necessary to arrive at the conclusion as to how much amount was incurred by the injured on his treatment. He was getting the treatment from a government hospital. For purchase of medicines he must have got bills, but he never produced any. So far as diet was concerned the amount could be awarded on presumption, but not for purchase of medicines for that some bills could have been produced. Nothing was produced, still the Tribunal awarded the amount which he thought reasonable. I find no infirmity in the Tribunal's reasoning. So far as the personal injuries on account of suffer- ing to the injured and the damages, those being personal in nature no right to sue would survive after the death of the injured.
(6) For the reasons stated above I find no merit in the cross objections.