Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Krishna Kumar Singh on 25 March, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1(1989)ACC25, AIRONLINE 1988 ALL 21
JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J.
1. These are two appeals arising out of a claim petition Under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. On 1-6-1978, Bus No. U.T.A. 2922 belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC for short) was going from Basti to Dumariaganj when at about 11 A.M. it met with an accident in which the claimant, appellant in F.A.F.O. No. 594 of 1980, received grievous injuries and he suffered compound comminuted fracture of both the bones of his left leg. According to the claimant, the bus was being driven at a high speed as it had started late and on account of rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred. A claim Rs. 50,000/- was raised and the break-up of the claim is as under:
(1) Medical expenses .... Rs. 20,000/- (2) Pain and suffering .... Rs. 20,000/- (3) Mental shock .... Rs. 5,000/- (4) Loss of business .... Rs. 5,000/-
3. After the accident, the claimant was shifted to Lucknow where he was admitted in the Hospital on 5-6-1978 and thereafter he came under the treatment of Dr. OP. Singh from the same date and remained ad mitted in his clinic till September, 1978.
4. The appellant Corporation denied negligence and it was alleged that a person appeared on the road suddenly and in order to avoid hitting him, the driver steered the vehicle to the left but the bush and pull road suddenly went out of order as a result of which the bus collided against a tree resulting in injuries to the claimant. It was alleged that the bus was neither driven rashly nor negligently and the accident occurred on account of latent defect in the vehicle which could not be discovered.
5. The claimant produced as many as 6 witnesses including himself and his father, attending doctors as PWs 2 and 3 and a few other persons. The Corporation, on the other hand, produced the driver of the vehicle and a police technician as D.S. 2 who had prepared the memo after the accident. The documentary evidence consisted of vouchers pertaining to the treatment and the certificates of the doctors and some other documents. From the side of the Corporation the memo prepared by the technician was produced.
6. After considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and the accident was caused on account of latent defect in the vehicle. It further found that there was no evidence to prove that all reasonable care had been taken by the Corporation before putting the vehicle on the road and, therefore, it was liable for the compensation claimed. On the question of quantum, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4442/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5000/-towards pain and suffering the Rs. 2000/- for loss of income. In this manner, a total sum of Rs. 11,442/- has been awarded to him with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award.
7. In F.A.F.O. No. 389 of 1980, the Corporation has challenged the findings of the Tribunal both on the question of liability and the quantum of compensation awarded. In the other F.A.F.O. No. 594 of 1980 filed by the claimant he has claimed enhancement of compensation.
8. Since both the appeals arise from the common award, they are being taken up together. In the first instance, it will be better to take up the appeal filed by the Corporation. It is contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the Corporation was liable for compensation as it owed a duty to maintain the vehicle in a reasonably good condition of repair and road worthy before it was brought on the road was erroneous. According to the learned Counsel, the defect was such that it could not be noticed either by the driver or by any one either by looking to the vehicle or while driving it. The bush and pull road attached to the steering road had broken suddenly and as such it was a case of accident over which the Corporation had no control.
9. In State of Maharashtra v. Sri Chandra Kant , it has been held that where the plea of latent defect is taken the owner owes a duty to lead all possible evidence to establish that he had taken all reasonable care to examine the vehicle before it was brought on the road. The Corporation is a Government Undertaking and one of the avowed objects of establishing the corporation was to provide efficient transport service to the public. It has extensive fund to maintain upto date workshop and it also has an army of employees in various depots to look after the technical side. It is certainly in a better position as compared to a private operator in maintaining its vehicle in a much better condition. As an undertaking of a welfare State, it owes greater duty to take care that its vehicles are in top road-worthy condition. I have been taken through the findings recorded by the court below and I entirely agree with the view expressed therein by the Tribunal that the Corporation was guilty in not placing on record the necessary evidence that the vehicle had been thoroughly checked before it was placed on the road that day. If this care had been taken and the vehicle had really been examined before it was taken out, the defect in the steering rod could certainly have been noticed. There is no technical evidence on the record to show that the defect was such which could not be found out even after examination and routine checkup of the same. I am, therefore, quite in agreement with the Tribunal that the Corporation is 1iable for paying compensation for the injuries caused to the claimant.
10. Coming now to the amount of compensation awarded; the various heads have already been mentioned. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4442/- towards medical expenses which includes Rs. 430/- as ambulance charges from Basti to Lucknow, Rs. 12/- as ward charges besides Rs. 1000/- as operation expenses and Rs. 3000/- for other medical expenses. Under this head, the claimant has asked a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. It has come in evidence that after the accident, the claimant was brought from Basti to Lucknow and he was initially admitted in the Government Hospital and was examined there by Dr. Pradeep Kumar PW 2. He, however, left the hospital the same day and came under the treatment of Dr. O.P. Singh (PW 3) and continued to remain admitted in his clinic from 5th June, 1978 till September 1978. "According to Dr. O.P. Singh; he charged Rs. 3800/- from the claimant for operation which included the charges for his Assistant, plastering, X-rays and anesthetist. Apart from this, a large number of bills have been filed which are Exts. 15 to 49 in respect of the expenses incurred for the treatment of the claimant during the period in question. Theses amounts have not been considered by the Tribunal and instead a limited sum amounting to Rs. 3000/- for other medical expenses have been awarded. The Tribunal also did not award Rs. 3800/- paid to Dr. Singh on the plea that the amount was excessive and if he had been treated in the Medical College Hospital, then the expenses would have been much less. This reasoning, however, does not appear to be proper. If in fact the claimant was treated by Dr. O.P. Singh and he had paid certain amount to him for treating him, the claimant was certainly entitled to the said amount. Merely because there is a Government Hospital it does not mean that an injured person is not entitled to get treatment else where and claim expenses incurred by him. It would lead to a very awkward situation because the mere existence of a Government Hospital or dispensary will disentitle a person from claiming any amount spent by him over his treatment.
11. One can not shut his eyes from the fact that in Government Hospital, a patient does not get the type of treatment which he wants to avail. The unhygeinic condition prevailing there deter him from remaining in such hospital. The condition of availability of even essential medicines in perilous and one seldom gets any medicine from the Hospital. The patients have generally to depend on their own resources for purchasing the medi cines from out side. It will be shutting ones eyes from reality if one were to ignore the fact that the Government Hospitals have to day become a most dreaded place and only a persons who has no resources feels compelled to go there. In such a situation, if the claimant decided to have treatment at the hands of Dr. O.P. Singh, it can not be said that he was unjustified in doing so.
12. Dr. O.P. Singh has appeared as PW 3 and has stated that the claimant remained admitted in his clinic from 5-6-1978 til! September, 1978 and even there after he had been visiting him for check up every two months. He has also stated about the nature of injuries received by him and the fact that even in August, 1979 when Dr. Singh was examined, the claimant was still using a stick while walking. He also stated that the limp which has developed in the claimant's leg is permanent and he will always feel discomfort while walking briskly and in running PW 6 has proved the medicine bills Ext. 13 to 49 which amounts to Rs. 1114.13. In my opinion, therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive Rs. 3800/- paid to Dr. O.P. Singh Rs. 442/- as awarded by the Tribunal also besides Rs. 1114.13 towards medical expenses. In this manner, under the first heading against Rs. 4442/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant will now get Rs. 5356.13 towards medical expenses. There is no oral or documentary evidence regarding overhead expenses incurred by the claimant during the period of his treatment at Lucknow and as such no amount in that respect can be awarded. The claimant was admitted living with one of his brother at Lucknow during that period.
13. As regards pain and suffering, as against the claim of Rs. 20,000/-, only a sum of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. As observed earlier, the medical evidence clearly shows that both the bones of left leg were fractured and he remained under treatment for almost four months. Even thereafter he did not fully recover and still there is a limb in his left leg which is said to be of permanent nature. In these circumstances, a mere sum of Rs. 5000/- can not suffice and appears to be rather on the low side, and looking to the fact that the claimant was only 29 years old and he has sufferred a permanent disability which is likely to affect him adversely throughout his life, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- under this head, in my opinion, would meet the ends of justice.
14. The claimant has also claimed a sum of Rs. 5000/- for mental shock. In my opinion the claim under this head must be deemed to be covered under the earlier head of pain and suffering and no separate amount need be awarded under this head.
15. The last head of claim is loss of income under which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000/- against a claim of Rs. 5000/- which, in my opinion, is a fair amount looking to the fact that earlier also he was getting his fields ploughed through hired labourers. In this manner, the claimant would now be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 22,356/13.
16. The Claims Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% and that too from the date of the award. The accident occurred in 1978 and at that time the Bank interest was much higher than 6%. In my opinion the fair rate of interest would be 9% and this should be awarded not from the date of the award but from the date of the petition.
17. In the result, appeal No. 389 of 1980 is dismissed. Appeal No. 594 of 1980 is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified and now instead of Rs. 11,442/-, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 22,356.13 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition. With the above modification, both the appeals are disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.