Allowed

Phusa Ra, and Anr. v. Gurdev Singh @ Gurdeep Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2019CMA/457/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the MACT. The Court held that the deceased's death resulted from a severe degloving injury caused by the accident. Based on Supreme Court guidelines, the compensation including loss of future income, filial consortium, and medical expenses was increased to Rs. 5,85,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,85,000 to be paid by the insurer within six weeks, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing.

Phusa Ra, and Anr. Vs Gurdev Singh @ Gurdeep Singh… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 457/2008

¶3

Phusa Ram s/o Moola Ram aged 38 years

¶4

Laxmi Devi w/o Phusa Ram aged 34 years

¶5

Both b/c Meghwal, r/o Ramsar, Police Station, Pugal, District Bikaner.

¶6

----Appellants/Claimants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gurdev Singh @ Gurdeep Singh s/o Vishakha Singh, b/c Jatsikh, r/o Kot Lukhiya, Police Station Sadar, District Faridkot (Punjab) (Driver).

¶9

Harbans Singh s/o Basant Singh b/c Jatsikh, r/o Chahal, Police Station Sadar, District Faridkot (Punjab) (owner).

¶10

The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager of the New India Insurance Co Limited, Panch-Shatti Circle, Bikaner (Insurer).

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Pravin Vyas
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Dhanpat Choudhary

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶14

Judgment

¶15

Reserved on 07/08/2019 Pronounced on 22/08/2019

¶16

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases -cum- Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants for seeking compensation in various heads on account of death of their son Ratnaram was rejected.

¶17

(2 of 7)

¶18

[CMA-457/2008]

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that on 13.06.2001 respondent No.1 was driving a truck bearing No.PB 4C 9776 rashly and negligently, and collided with the appellant/claimant-Laxmi Devi and her son Ratnaram while they were walking on the road.

¶20

Respondent No.1 was employed by respondent No.2 who is owner of the truck and the truck was duly insured with the respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶21

After notices were served, the Tribunal framed issues and the respondent No.3-Insurance Company submitted that the death was not caused on account of the injuries caused in the accident and no claim was therefore liable to be paid.

¶22

It was the case of respondent No.3-Insurance Company that in absence of the injury report and postmortem report, no case for claim can be said to be made out.

¶23

The Tribunal examined Laxmi Devi and Vijay Kumar and other documents.

¶24

Respondent No.3 examined Vijay Kumar and Manish Tomar, and the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that while accident did take place on account of rash and negligent action of the driver of the vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3, but so far as death of Ratnaram is concerned, the same cannot be said to be on account of result of the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.55,500/- towards the claim. Feeling aggrieved of the aspect, the present appeal has been preferred.

¶25

I have considered submissions and the arguments raised at Bar.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that while the deceased can be said to have been wounded on

¶27

(3 of 7)

¶28

[CMA-457/2008]

¶29

account of the accident, it cannot be said that the injuries resulted in his death.

¶30

The Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that while the accident took place on 13.06.2001 by the driver, who had the license to drive the vehicle and was engaged with respondent No.2 and the vehicle was duly insured, and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. It however, reached to the conclusion that the death of Ratnaram was not caused due to accident. The statement of one Vijay Kumar was not found to be reliable, who is said to be a local Ayurvedic Doctor.

¶31

Question which is to be determined is whether the death of Ratnaram was result of injuries caused in the accident and what relief is required.

¶32

Laxmi Devi AW-1 has stated that the accident took place on 13.06.2001 and she was admitted in the hospital and Ratnaram was also admitted in the hospital and he remained in the hospital from 13.06.2001 to 01.11.2001 whereafter he was discharged but continued under medication.

¶33

From the initial medical report Exhibit-18, Ratnaram was reported to have four simple injuries. She has also placed the discharge ticket as Exhibit-19.

¶34

After having been discharged from the hospital on 01.11.2001, Laxmi Devi states in her statement that Ratnaram stayed in the village for one month, and 3-4 days before his death, he had suddenly become unwell and he was taken to a local doctor, who alongwith Punamram brought him to Bikaner; but before they could reach Bikaner, he died.

¶35

(4 of 7)

¶36

[CMA-457/2008]

¶37

She admits that as there was no family member accompanying him, postmortem was not conducted of Ratnaram. She states that her son was having continuous fever, but it was not malaria.

¶38

Vijay Kumar AW-2 who is stated to be a Ayurvedic Doctor states that Ratnaram used to come to his place for getting dressing done every alternate day and there were severe injuries in his leg.

¶39

He also states that at the time of discharge, the hospital had given deceased Ratnaram medicines for fifteen days with advice to get him checked again at Bikaner. He states that further medicines were taken for 15 days.

¶40

On 01.12.2001, when Ratnaram came to his house, his situation was serious and therefore he immediately rushed Ratnaram to Bikaner. However, before reaching Bikaner, he expired. He has stated that an internal infection had taken place on account of injuries.

¶41

The MACT has rejected his evidence on the ground that he is not an MBBS Doctor and it cannot be believed that Vijay Kumar was treating Ratnaram and Laxmi Devi has also not stated so in her statement and therefore, his statement that on account of internal infection, Ratnaram expired, cannot be believed.

¶42

Exhibit-19 is discharge ticket of deceased Ratnaram which mentions of crush in thigh and leg and that there is a large degloved area from thigh to leg tandems with exposed muscle and muscle lacerated. The doctor has mentioned injury as degloving injury of limb with loss of skin and subent tissues and exposed muscles of leg.

¶43

(5 of 7)

¶44

[CMA-457/2008]

¶45

At the time of discharge, the doctor has advised to keep treatment continuous and for dressing every alternate day with Betadine Solution and prescribed medicines for 15 days and rechecking. The discharge certificate also mentions that there is no requirement of X-ray.

¶46

Butterworths Medical Dictionary Second Edition defines ‘degloving injury’ to mean, “the tearing off, by injury, of the skin of the forearm and hand or the leg and foot in a manner comparable to that of taking off a glove”.

¶47

From Wikipedia and notes therein, this Court finds that degloving injury is a very severe injury and the top layers of the skin and tissues are ripped from the underlying muscle, connective tissue or bone, exposing them and infection is common with any degloving injury and can lead to life threatening situations.

¶48

Keeping in view the above, if the statement of Vijay Kumar, who is a Government Ayurvedic Doctor living in the village is considered, this Court finds that he has sufficiently proved through his statement that the death of Ratnaram was caused on account of injuries in his legs. Injuries are those, which are noticed in the discharge certificate Exhibit-19.

¶49

Hence, the view taken by the MACT is found to be erroneous. The learned Tribunal has failed to examine the Exhibit-19 and wrongly denied the claim of the claimants.

¶50

Thus, the question is answered in favour of the claimants that the death of deceased Ratnaram was caused on account of the accident, which resulted in the degloving injury, which the deceased continued to suffer even after discharge. The claimants, therefore, are entitled for compensation.

¶51

(6 of 7)

¶52

[CMA-457/2008]

¶53

For assessment of compensation to the claimants, who are father and mother, this Court finds that deceased Ratnaram, who expired at the age of 13 years was the only son of his parents.

¶54

In view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, a multiplier of 15 would apply as age of the deceased was less than 15 years (13 years).

¶55

Notional income as held in Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 for a child less than fifteen years of age, is assessed as Rs.30,000/- per annum.

¶56

In view of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram, reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1546, loss of filial consortium is required to be paid to the parents. Accordingly under the conventional heads, amount of Rs.70,000/- is assessed. Looking to the nature of continuing severe injury of degloving of leg for which as per discharge certificate medicines have been prescribed continuously to the deceased and dressing to be done every alternate day even after discharge. He has remained admitted in the hospital from 13.06.2001 to 01.11.2001 which is about four and a half months. Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2019 (9) SCALE 200 and the disability caused, which required continuous treatment, a lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards hospitalization, medical expenses and continuous treatment and medicines is awarded for the period.

¶57

On the issue of liability, this Court finds that the vehicle was duly insured, and therefore, the insurance company is held to be liable.

¶58

(7 of 7) [CMA-457/2008]

¶59

Accordingly, the compensation is computed as under:-

¶60

(i)	Notional Income	Rs.30,000/-per annum
(ii)	Future prospects	Rs.12,000/- (i.e. 40% of the income
(iii)	Deduction towards personal expenses	50%
(iv)	Total income	Rs.21,000/- per annum (i.e. 50% of 30,000 + 12,000)
(v)	Multiplier	15
(vi)	Loss of future income	Rs.3,15,000(i.e. 21,000 x 15)
(vii)	Loss of filial consortium	Rs.70,000/-
(viii)	Hospitalization, medical expenses and continuous treatment and medicines	Rs.2,00,000/-
	Total	Rs.5,85,000/-
	Already awarded by Tribunal	Rs.55,500/-
	Enhanced amount (5,85,000–55,500)	Rs.5,29,500/-

¶61

Accordingly, an enhanced amount of Rs.5,29,500/shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from today to the appellants. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The record of the MACT is directed to be sent back forthwith. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶62

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶63

SKant/-

Phusa Ra, and Anr. v. Gurdev Singh @ Gurdeep Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phusa Ra, and Anr. v. Gurdev Singh @ Gurdeep Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badri Prasad and Ors. Vs Amba Lal and Ors.

Lal Chand Vs Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

Shyam Singh Parihar Vs Manju Bala

Aaris Khan Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Manoj Kumar S/O Sh. Haripal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Suresh Singh S/O Shri Gopal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, through Its Principal Secretary