K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant. The accident took place on 11.08.1999, when he and his brother were going on scooter, a tanker going ahead of him had suddenly applied brake and the scooter dashed into the tanker. The claimant was thrown off and had his skull fractured and also suffered multiple injuries all over the body. The Tribunal found that he could be compensated only for the injuries since he would have had the benefit of medical reimbursement of all the expenses. It did not address the various heads of claims that were possible but lumped them all to award compensation of Rs.1 lakh. I find the Tribunal was more than reasonable when it found the negligence on the part of the tanker. If the vehicle going ahead of him suddenly applied brakes, a vehicle following it must keep sufficient distance so that even a sudden application of brake by the vehicle going in front does not result in a collision. If such a collision takes place at a rear side of the vehicle, I would normally take that to be resultant to careless driving of the vehicle following the vehicle going in front and find no fault of the driver of the first vehicle. In all probabilities, if he had not applied brake, he could have caused greater danger to any other human being or come by collision with another person going still ahead. All that the Tribunal has stated for assessing the negligence is by the fact that the police had registered a complaint against the driver of the tanker. It is a poor understanding of law that in every instance where a driver is challaned, it should immediately be inferred by the Tribunal that there was a case of negligence. If the relevance of a criminal case is to be stretched to such an extent, the logical extension shall also be that if the criminal court dismissed a complaint, the Tribunal shall also follow the same and come to the conclusion that there was no negligence. That is not however the correct statement of law. Where there is sufficient evidence that the accident had been caused by rash and negligent driving and FIR registers an eyewitness account of how the vehicle had been driven, the fact that the police had also challaned the driver could be relevant. Otherwise it will be totally wrong for a Tribunal to assume that immediate inference of negligence must be made whenever a police challans the driver. This is not to state that very strict standards of proof for negligence are necessary before the Tribunal. A normal inference of negligence will be possible where vehicles coming from opposite direction or where there is a poor judgment of some vehicles coming from the opposite direction overtaking yet another vehicle and coming to collision with another vehicle or hit a person on the wrong side of the road. This case does not afford any such special circumstance. This was a case where the tanker driver applied brake and the scooterist dashed against the tanker from the rear side. I am merely setting out all these facts to show that the manner of approach by the Tribunal for assessing negligence was seriously flawed. Nothing however turns out of this, since there is no appeal by any of the respondents against the finding of guilt on the driver of the tanker.
(2.) THE claimant was treated by Dr. Rakesh Girdhar, who deposed that the claimant was 40 years of age and he found at least 10 injuries on his person. He had referred him to PGI, Rohtak and the treatment given to the claimant was for depressed fracture of the skull bone. The Head of the Department -Dr.Chaitanya Sharma was examined as PW2 who gave evidence to the effect that there was a depressed fracture of the left frontal bone with non -haemorrhagic contusion of the right fronto temporal lobe. He had been operated and discharged on 21.08.1999. The doctor advised him to join light duty and also stated that the injury which the claimant suffered was dangerous to his life and that he had to ultimately perform a complicated surgery. Yet another doctor, namely, Sameer Aggarwal, Neuro Surgeon, had given evidence to the effect that he had treated him as OPD patient. He also gave evidence to the effect that at the time when he was examined, a craniotomy defect in the left frontal region was found and that he might require a surgery in future as well. The doctor opined that he would require prolonged treatment and there could be a chance of epileptic fits in future. The Tribunal, while considering the issue of quantum, took note of the fact that the claimant was a central government employee and though the claimant had stated that he had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.60,000/ -. No medical bills had been filed to show that they were still not claimed. The Tribunal, therefore, reasoned that the claimant must have obtained reimbursement against the bills for purchase of medicines as a reason for non -production of any other medical bills. Apart from the fact that the doctor had stated that there was a chance of epileptic fits and that he would require surgery in future, there was nothing brought on record to show that there was any particular disability that he had suffered. I would assume that for craniotomy fracture that required surgical intervention and constant monitoring, the claimant would have suffered substantial pain and suffering and mental trauma for which he would require to be paid compensation adequately which I would estimate at Rs.50,000/ -. I would also provide for an amount of Rs.50,000/ - towards loss of amenities. For future medical treatment which the doctor had spoken off, he would not require any special provision for additional medical expenses for the same reason why the past medical expenses had not been separately provided for, since he would have claimed reimbursement. All the same, a future medical treatment requiring hospitalization, attendant and transportation would also require to be provided for which I would estimate at Rs.50,000/ -. This shall be the only additional amount which would require to be considered in this case, having regard to the fact that the claimant had also been awarded Rs.1 lakh.
(3.) THE additional compensation secured through this award shall be Rs.50,000/ - and the same shall attract interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the insurer.;