Partly allowed

Shimla Devi v. Pardeep and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2012FAO/5610/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed an appeal filed by a motor accident victim seeking enhanced compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court found the Tribunal's award reasonable regarding medical bills due to lack of evidence but allowed Rs. 35,000 additional for transportation, special diet, and attendant services considering the treatment distance. The enhanced amount is to be paid

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 35,000 for ambulance transport, special diet, and attendant services to be paid within 45 days.

Shimla Devi Vs Pardeep and Ors. — Medical Negligence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.5610 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. 5610 of 2010

¶5

In MACT RBT Case No.05 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.4.2012

Shimla Devi

....Appellant

Versus

Pardeep & others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

Present: - Mr. Deepak Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. D.S. Nain, Advocate for Mr. Parveen Gaur, Advocate for respondent Nos.1. & 2.

¶14

Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶15

JITENDRA CHAUHAN J.(ORAL):

¶16

The claimant-appellant preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount, awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat whereby an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded on account of injuries sustained by appellant Shimla Devi, in a vehicular accident that took place on 2.2.2009.

¶17

Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 2.2.2009, the appellant along with one Ishwar Singh and Narender was going to Bazar to purchase some household articles. When she reached near Qilla, Panipat, a TATA-407 bearing registration No. HR-45-6131 being driven by respondent No.1.Pardeep in a rash and negligent manner hit

¶18

-2-

¶19

FAO No.5610 of 2010

¶20

appellant Shimla Devi. As a result she received multiple injuries. The appellant was removed to Gandhi Hospital, Panipat, for treatment from where she was referred to PGIMER.

¶21

The claimant-appellant preferred claim petition bearing MACT RBT Case No.05 of 2010, before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal Panipat, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 12.4.2010, awarding an amount of Rs.60,000/- on account of injuries sustained by appellant Shimla Devi in a vehicular accident that took place on 2.2.2009.

¶22

Feeling dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant came up in the present appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He refers to Exhibits P-6 to P-40 amounting to Rs. 65,183/- whereas, the learned Tribunal has awarded and reimbursed the amount of Rs.50,000/- only including other heads. He further submits that the medical bills were duly prescribed by the doctor and the medicines against the bills were actually purchased from the PGIMER itself and consumed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly submits that the fact of admission of the appellant in the hospital from 2.2.2009 to 9.2.2009 has not been considered by the learned Tribunal and an adequate amount has not been awarded towards the heads special diet and transportation.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that in the absence of

¶24

-3-

¶25

FAO No.5610 of 2010

¶26

examination of treating doctor,record of the hospitalization and operations carried out, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

So far as the contention of non-reimbursement of the medical bills is concerned, the learned Tribunal has given a categorical finding that neither the treating doctor has been examined nor any cogent evidence was placed on record by the appellant. There was also no details regarding the operations carried out or the hospitalization period was furnished.

¶29

The accident occurred in the area of district Panipat, from where the appellant was removed to PGIMER Chandigarh, where she remained admitted from 2.2.2009 to 9.2.2009. Though, it has been claimed that she has spent Rs.65183/- on treatment but in the absence of any testimony of the treating doctor the same cannot be relied upon. Neither there is any record of the operations carried out by the appellant nor any authentication of her admission in PGIMER Chandigarh, except the discharge certificate. Therefore, the leanred Tribunal has rightly allowed the approximate expenses likely to have been incurred by the appellant on her treatment. The learned Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the head 'pain and suffering'. After rescaning the entire evidence, this Court is of the view that for the reasons cited by the learned Tribunal i.e

¶30

-4-

¶31

FAO No.5610 of 2010

¶32

non-examiantion of treating doctor and the absence of period of the hospitalization of the appellant as indoor patient, the amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable and adequate. However, this Court feels that the amount awarded towards special diet and transportation deserves to be enhanced, as the accident took place in the area of District Panipat which is about 150 k.m from Chandigarh, where the injured was treated. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the appellant must have incurred expenses on transportation. Therefore, an amount of Rs.15000/- is allowed under these heads. Keeping in view the injuries suffered by the appellant, it can be safely inferred that the appellant must have remained bed ridden during the interregnum and must have availed services of an attendent and must have been advised special diet. Thus, an amount of Rs 20,000/- is allowed towards the head attendant charges and special diet.

¶33

The enhanced amount comes to Rs.35,000/- which shall be payable by the respondents to the claimant-appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 7 ½% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till its realisation.

¶34

With the above modification, the appeal is partly

¶35

allowed.

¶36

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶37

20.4.2012 aarti

Shimla Devi v. Pardeep and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shimla Devi v. Pardeep and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhjot Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rani & Ors. Vs Bhupinder Singh & Ors.

Paramjit Kaur Vs Sr. Supdt. of Police, Kapurthala & Ors.

M/S Aggarwal Refractory P. Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Other

Amritpal Singh & Anr. Vs Gurmit Kaur & Anr.

Prem Devi and Ors. Vs Santokh Singh and Ors.