Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sudesh Raizada vs Deepak Gupta And Ors. on 31 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: II(1993)ACC455, 1993ACJ1245, (1993)104PLR266
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The claim appeal here is for enhancement of compensation.
2. Both the appellants Sudesh Raizada and Jyotsna Bawa who were travelling in the car DET 9118 sustained serious injuries when it was involved In an accident with the Haryana Roadways Bus HYX 2428 coaling from the opposite direction. This happened at about 9 .30 A.M. On April 3, 1985 on the Gran Trunk Road near Shahbad. It was the finding of both the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Haryana Roadways bus The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/ as compensation to Sudesh Raizada which the learned Single Judge enhanced to Rs. 2,80,000/- while in the case of Jyotsna Bawa, the award of Rs. 1,26,350/- by the Tribunal was increased to Rs. 1,70,000/- by the learned Single Judge.
3. Taking the case of Sudesh Raizada, a reference to the material on record shows that at the time of the accident, she was about 43 years of age. According 10 the testimony of PW-1 Dr. S. N. Mathuria and PW-2 Dr. K. P. Mishra, it stands established that she suffered messivc brain damage resulting in loss of mental faculties besides other physical injuries. Her situation is such that she has no control over her brain and is barely existing, without, in any manner, having any control over her senses or being able to look after herself. In other words, she is wholly dependent upon other persons to look after her.
4. Additional evidence was led on behalf of the claimant Sudesh Raizada consisting Of the opinion of Or. V. S. Merita, Associate Professor of Neuro-Surgery at the All India Medical Institute New Delhi, who opined that there were little or no chances of improvement in her condition. A similar opinion was also expressed by Dr. B. S. Sihota, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi.
5. When the matter came up in appeal before us, considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the physical state of the claimant as it appeared from the material on record, the. claimant Sudesh Raizada was directed to be medically examined with a view to know her present condition and the further treatment, if any, she may require. The Medical Superintendent of the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, was consequently directed to constitute a Medical Board consisting of the Heads of the Departments of Orthopedics and Neurology to examine the claimant and give complete report about her physical state and the future treatment she may need.
6. The Medical Board constituted by the Medical Superintendent of the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Hew Delhi comprised :-
1. Dr. S. P. Aggarwal, Head, Department of Neurosurgery and Addl. Medical Supdt. .
2. Dr. V. L Kochhar Head, Department of Orthopaedics.
3. Dr. Ved Bhushan, Dy. Medical Supdt.
The relevant extract of the report of the Medical Board reads as Under :-
"She has a sear mark on left frontal region. She is incontinent for urine and faeces. In view of the left frontal injury which is the vital area of the brain in right handed individual, she is severely mentally incapacitated. She also has orthodices of the fight ankle joint for which she was operated on 23-5-1985 at P.G.I. Chandigarh. The Board is of the opinion that in view of her physical health she would require an attendant round the clock to help her day-to-day activities alongwith life long medicines and rehabilitation. As seven years have already been passed since her injury and operations, the chances of her further improvement are very little."
Later, farther opinion of the Medical Board was sought with regard to the life expectancy of the claimant in the context of her present physical slate The Board opined :-
"The Board members were of unanimous opinion that it is impossible to judge the life expectancy of any person as it is the Will of God.
But keeping in view the injuries suffered by her and its complications which has followed and which in the opinion of the Board members are permanent it is expected that she may suffer a 25% (Twenty-five per cent) loss in her life expectancy."
7. The picture that, thus, emerges is that besides the pain and suffering undergone by the claimant and her loss of amenities of life, her condition now is such that she would require an attendant all 24 hours of the day and night to help her in her daily needs, besides, of course, medicines for the rest of her life. As has been indicated in the report of the Medical Board, there is little chance of any improvement in her condition.
8. The question next arises, what should be taken to be the time span for which the claimant would require the services of an attendant. This, in turn, would depend upon her estimated life expectancy and there can, of course, be no precise measure for this. Taking into account, however, the normal life expectancy and its likely curtailment in the case of the claimant as opined by the Medical Board, no exception can be taken to the view of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge giving her a life expectancy of 16 years.
9. Keeping in view the cost of attendants for the claimant for her estimated life expectancy and the amounts already awarded by the learned Single Judge under various heads, the amount claimed on behalf of the claimant, namely, Rs. 5,00,000/- can by no means be termed as unreasonable or excessive.
10. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances of the claimant, the nature and extent of injuries suffered by her and the consequences thereof, particularly the toss of amenities of life, the medical expenses incurred and likely to be incurred in future as also the cost of attendant, the compensation payable to the claimant is hereby enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/-.
11. Turning next to the case of the other claimant, namely, Jyotsna Bawa, it will be seen that she was about 38 years of age at the time of the accident. She was employed as Clerk in a bank. In this accident, she suffered fracture of her leg, as a result of which there is shortening of the right lower limb by an inch and permanent; physical impairment to the extent of 65 per cent. There is a nail in her right thigh. It appears that she was also pregnant at the time of the accident and the accident led to miscarriage too. As mentioned earlier, the compensation awarded to her by the Tribunal was enhanced by the learned Single Judge to Rs. 1,70.000/-. Keeping in view the disability that has resulted to the claimant on account of the injuries suffered by her. it undoubtedly puts additional financial burden upon her both for going to work and back and for other purposes too, she Would now have to be dependent upon hired transport The extent of disability to the claimant on this account and the financial implications thereof have, of course, to be considered and judged in the context of the peculiar situation of the claimant. As the claimant was only about 38 years of age at the time of the accident, it would mean that she had another twenty years of service before attaining the age of superannuation. Her expenses for transportation and her disability have clearly to be seen keeping this in view
12. Taking an overall view of the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and her disability and the additional financial burden they impose upon her, interests of justice clearly render it incumbent that the compensation awarded be enhanced. After giving this matter our carefull consideration, we hereby enhance the compensation payable to this claimant to Rs. 2,75,000/-.
13. Both the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation awarded alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till the date of payment of the amount awarded. The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
14. In the result, both the appeals are hereby accepted with costs With counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/- in each case. In the case of Sudesh Raizada, she shall also be entitled to the costs of the Medical Board. Such costs to be assessed on the basis of the receipts of actual payment made for this purpose to the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, as may be submitted to the Registry by the appellant.