Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Before the Tribunal, it was case of the claimant that she was 22 years of age at the time of accident and pursuing B.A. 1st Year in Govt. College for Girls, Sector 11, Chandigarh. She had participated in National School Games at Chandigarh and had also received various certificates and appreciations in the game of Ball Badmin- ton. However, due to paralysis of right side of her body on account of injuries received in the said accident she had to give up her academic and sports career. In the accident she suffered brain injury, right hemiparesis with ataxia and other multiple injuries. She was admitted in GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh on 13.5.2013 and discharged from there on 6.6.2013. She was medically examined by Medical Board of PGIMER Chandigarh and her permanent disability was assessed to the extent of 50% in relation to the whole body. The disability was reported to be permanent in nature and not likely to improve. Reassessment of disability was also not recommended. Due to said injuries her IQ level had decreased and she stammers while talking.

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal is in error in assessing the monthly income of the appellant as only Rs.7500/- as per Collector rate and the same ought to have been taken as Rs.30,000/- per month, the appellant being an outstanding academic and sportsperson. Further, appellant should be awarded 50% in- crease towards future prospects in view of her acknowledged achievements. It is further submitted that appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% in relation to her whole body. The IQ level of the appellant has decreased due to head injury, her right side is paralyzed, and she stammers while talking. It is therefore, submitted that functional loss be taken as 100% also in view of the fact that reassessment of disability was not recommended by the Medical Board. As regards medical treatment, it is sub- mitted that though a sum of Rs.3 lacs was incurred in her treatment, but appellant having remained bed ridden could not maintain all the bills except the ones that were produced amounting to Rs.84,337/-. Therefore, medical expenses are claimed to the extent of Rs.3 lacs. Reasonable amount is also prayed for in view of life-long physiotherapy that the appellant will require during her life time. Against the award of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, enhancement to the tune of Rs. 3 lac has been prayed. Simi- larly, under the head of loss of marriage prospects Rs. 3 lacs have been prayed for, while the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1 lac under this head. Reliance is being placed upon Sri Kumaresh v The Divisional Manager National Insurance Co.Ltd., 2011 STPL(web) 462 SC Further, enhancement is also sought in the rate of interest from 7.5% to 12%. It is also submitted that it may be held that the accident took place due to the composite negligence of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4.

Regarding the question of composite negligence, it is undisputed on record that the claimant in her cross-examination has admitted that the respondent no.4- driver of Active was not at fault. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant was not confronted with this statement, this Court is of the view that the present is not a case of composite negligence.

Now regarding quantum of compensation, the fact that jumps out from the present case is the factum of horrific injuries suffered by the appellant as a result of which the great future ahead of her was cut short. In this regard the statement of Dr Rajesh Chhabra PW2 is very relevant. Further, admittedly, at the time of accident the appellant was an outstanding student as also a National Level player of ball badminton. In the accident she received serious injuries - including a brain injury as a result of which she remained unconscious for a period of more than one month, and the right side of the body of the appellant is now paralysed. As per the Medical Board, this disability is per- manent and is not likely to improve. This verdict of the Board seems to be irreversible in view of the fact that even reassessment of disability has not been recommended by them. It is also not in dispute that the IQ level of the appellant has decreased due to head injury and she stammers when she talks. Further she cannot walk without the help of a stick, cannot stand for a long time, and climbs stairs with great difficulty. It is therefore, clear that notwithstanding the fact that the permanent disability of the appellant has been assessed to the extent of 50% only, however, for all intents and purposes, the functional life of the appellant is at an end. In view of the above facts, the functional disability of the appellant is taken to be hundred percent.