Appeal by motor accident claimant challenging the Tribunal's award of Rs.75,000 compensation. Court upheld the award, finding claimed additional expenses unsubstantiated and the compensation fair given the accident year and disability level.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 FA 962/1997
abs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 962 OF 1997
Rajendra Dayabhai Patel
.. Appellant
V/s
.. Respondents
Mr. S.M. Oak for the appellant.
Rohan S. Darandale i/b Mr. R.S. Datar for respondent no.2.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT :
2 FA 962/1997
3 FA 962/1997
was caused on account of his negligence. The Tribunal also considered the evidence adduced regarding the expenses incurred by the claimant towards the medical treatment and held that he has spent an amount of Rs.51,583.45 on medical treatment. In addition, the Tribunal was of the view that a sum of Rs.20,000/- be awarded to him for pain and suffering, loss of income, etc. and thus the claimant was entitled to the total compensation of Rs.71,583.45. The Tribunal rounded up the said claim and awarded Rs.75,000/- to the claimant. The respondents have accepted the said award and have not filed any appeal or cross objections. Before me also, learned counsel for the respondents did not challenge the finding of negligence. Hence, the only question that is required to be considered is whether the compensation awarded is just and proper.
4 FA 962/1997
any charges allegedly paid to Dr. Natu other than the one which was covered in the sum of Rs.51,583.45 awarded by the Tribunal, was produced before it. The Tribunal therefore rightly disallowed the claim for the additional amount of Rs.5,000/alleged to have been incurred for the treatment taken from Dr. Natu. Counsel for the claimant then submitted that the claimant was also admitted in the Nair Hospital for few days and had spent Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- for the treatment at Nair Hospital. However, the claimant had lost the original bills and receipts. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the money spent at Nair Hospital. I am unable to agree. Firstly, Nair Hospital is a municipal hospital where the treatment is free or provided on nominal charges. Secondly, no bill or receipt was produced for having incurred any expenses for any medical treatment at the Nair Hospital. In the absence of any material on record to show that the claimant had spent Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- for treatment at the Nair Hospital, the Tribunal has rightly disallowed the said claim and has restricted the claim to Rs.51,583.45 for which the bills/receipts were produced by him.
5 FA 962/1997
future prospects and employment is too meager. He further submitted that the claimant had suffered permanent partial disability and the amount of Rs.20,000/- was too meager to cover that claim. The medical certificate shows that the permanent disability suffered by the claimant was only of 5%. The medical certificate does not show that on account of the said small permanent disability the claimant would not be able to carry out his vocation as a driver. The claimant also did not state that on account of the disability he was not in a position to continue his vocation as a driver. The amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded for pain and suffering and the loss of income during the period of his medical treatment, in my opinion, is not unreasonably low. In any event, the Tribunal has awarded further sum of Rs. 3416.55 towards rounding up. If this amount of rounding up is taken into consideration, the total amount of compensation for pain and suffering and loss of income during the period of medical treatment comes to Rs.23,416/- appears to be just and fair taking into consideration the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 1989. Taking into consideration the value of rupee in the year 1989, that amount cannot be said to be unreasonably low.
6 FA 962/1997
hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation of Rs.75,000 awarded by the Tribunal for medical expenses and pain and suffering was just and proper.
Whether the appellant is entitled to additional compensation for unproven medical expenses claimed at private and municipal hospitals.
Whether the award of Rs.20,000 for pain and suffering considering a 5% permanent disability and the accident year 1989 was unreasonably low.
Rajendra Dayabhai Patel
Life Insurance Corporation
United India Insurance Company
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
