PANWAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 9. 2. 1995 passed by the Most Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in Claim case No. 719/92 (152/92) by which the Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 99,000/- in favour of the appellant and against the respondents.
(2.) BEING aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the Award. Briefly stated the facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are that on 3. 9. 91, the appellant was travelling in a Bus No. RNE 4833 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation') from Chittorgarh to Bhilwara. At about 8. 15 AM while the Bus was at about 8-10 Kms away from Bhilwara and reached infront of Rajshree and Amol Synthetics, at that time, a Truck No. RJ-14-G-0678 came from opposite direction driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 2 Deen Singh suddenly came from wrong side of the road and collided with the aforesaid bus. After having dashed against the bus, the truck thereafter covered a distance of 115 ft. and dashed against the tree. Due to this accident, the appellant who was passenger of the bus sustained sever injuries on her person. The injuries resulted in the compound fracture of right leg. Tibia and Fibula bones and feature of left shaft femur. She was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Bhilwara where she remained admitted and under treatment for three days and therefore she was referred to a private Hospital, Ahmedabad (Gujarat ). The nature of treatment, it duration, expenses incurred and other damages resulted due to accident were claimed as compensation. In all the appellant laid claim for a sum of Rs. 4,23,800/- before the Tribunal. Respondents No. 1 and 3 filed their respective written statements. On the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues and tried the case. The Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the accident was result of driving of the truck rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 2 and as such, the issue of negligence was decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Issues No. 2 and 3 were decided against the respondents. The finding on issues No. 1,2 and 3 are not under challenge, as such, becomes final. While deciding issue No. 4, the Tribunal computed and awarded compensation of Rs. 99,000/- along with interest in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record, scrutinised and evaluated the evidence on record.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel Mr. Surendra Singh Jodha appearing on behalf of the appellant that the the Tribunal fell in error while computing the compensation which resulted in awarding inadequate compensation. He contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and do not commensurate with that of the injuries sustained which resulted in permanent disablement to the extent of 25 percent. He also contended that the appellant sustained severe injuries on both the legs and other parts of the body, for which, she had undergone for long treatment at bhilwara and Ahmedabad. She remained on leave during her treatment for a period of 290 days. He further contended that at the time of accident, the appellant's age was 39 years. She underwent as many as three operations at Sheth Vadilal Sarabnbai General Hospital, Ahmedabad. At the relevant time, she was holding the post of Sectional Education Officer in the Education Department of State Government and her monthly income was Rs. 3,420/ -. He further contended that the appellant is entitled for compensation for loss of income for the leave period and for future, expenses on treatment, nourishment, attendants and conveyance etc. as claimed. He further contended that the injuries resulted in permanent disablement to the extent of 25 per cent and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and award impugned and contented that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation and cannot be termed to be highly inadequate. It was specifically pleaded and proved by the appellant that the injuries sustained due to the aforesaid accident, resulted in fracture of her right, leg, tibia and fibula bones and shaft femur of left leg bones. Thus, it has been established that the injuries resulted in as many as three the fractures. She remained admitted at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara for two days and thereafter she was advised by the doctor at Bhilwara for higher degree of treatment at Ahmedabad. She along with her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law travelled from Bhilwara to Ahmedabad by Pinky Travels. She was admitted at Sheth Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad where she underwent operation of her right leg on 7. 9. 91 and 18. 9. 91, she further underwent the second operation and was discharged on 2. 10. 91. After having inserted steel rod in her left leg, plaster on her both the legs were applied. However, looking to the compound fractures of various bones, she was advised by the doctor at Ahmedabad to take complete bed rest and, therefor, she along with aforesaid three attendants remained at Ahmedabad till 28. 10. 91. Because of heavy loss of blood due to injuries, seven Units of blood was transfused in her body. She was again admitted at Sheth Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad on 21. 10. 91 and was discharged on 26. 10. 91. On 28. 10. 91, after having been discharged from the Hospital, she along with the aforesaid three attendants came to Bhilwara by an Ambulance as she was advised to travel in Ambulance because in one of her legs, a steel rod was inserted both the legs were under plaster. According to the medical advice, she was prohibited to allow the movement of fractured legs. They remained at Bhilwara till 16. 11. 91. On 17. 11. 91 she along with there attendants and her brother Shiv Kumar came for Bhilwara to Chittorgarh. On 19. 11. 91, they came back to Bhilwara to Chittorgarh. On 19. 11. 91, they came back to Bhilwara and on 24. 11. 91, she along with the aforesaid persons again went to Ahmedabad from Bhilwara in A Taxi Car of Pinky Travels. She was again admitted in Sheth Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad and after having reduced size of the plaster, she was discharged from hospital with the advise of complete bed rest. Accordingly, they came back to Bhilwara and she remained under complete rest upto 18. 1. 92. On 19. 1. 92 she along with the aforesaid persons again went to Ahmedabad in a Taxi Car of Panky Travels and was examined at Sheth Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad. She was asked to go for review/further check up after 15 days and, therefore, she along with the aforesaid persons came to Bhilwara by Taxi Car. Again on 19. 2. 92, she along with the other attendants went to Ahmedabad, where she was admitted on 20. 2. 92 at the aforesaid hospital and on being examined, it was found that union of bones of right leg was in disorder, therefore, she was again admitted on 22. 2. 92 at the aforesaid hospital and by operation, a steel rod was inserted in her beg. She remained there till 8. 3. 92. She was discharged from hospital on 8. 3. 92. Therefore she along with the aforesaid persons came back to Bhilwara. On 6. 4. 92, she along with other attendants again went to Ahmedabad from Bhilwara. Her plaster was removed and she was discharged with the advise to take rest. She also stated that on the date of making statement before the learned Tribunal i. e. 3. 5. 94 as many as three plates and 16 screws were affixed on the femur bone and steel rod was remained inserted. She further stated that according to the advise of the doctor, the plates, screws and steel rod were required to be removed for which she has to further undergo an operation, else it may result into infection. She stated that the underwent operations thrice at Ahmedabad. On each court, she has paid Rs. 5,000/- as operation fee to the doctor, as such, she has incurred Rs. 15,000/- for the operations, which she underwent at Ahmedabad. She also stated that she has incurred Rs. 35,000/- on account of treatment expenses although she could file treatment bills for Rs. 15,000/- since she and her attendants could not procure the bills and did not take care to see that every medicine is purchased by bill. She further stated that because of frequent movement from Chittorgarh to Bhilwara and Ahmedabad, rest of medicine bills appear to have been either could not be collected or misplaced by her attendants. She also stated that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been incurred on account of expenses on attendants. She further stated that her husband, brother in law and sister in law, all were Government employees and during the period they remained along with her as attendants at various places, they were required to be on Leave, as such, it resulted in loss of income for their leave period. Despite prolonged treatment, her right leg resulted in permanent shortening by 2. 00 Cms. and, therefore, it has also resulted in permanent limping. She has also stated that she has suffered terrible physical pain and mental agony and unable to move properly. She has placed on record various documents including injury report Ex. 3, X-ray Report Ex. 4, Salary Certificate Ex. 7, Certificate of permanent disablement Ex. 8, Discharged Ticket Ex. 9, Salary Certificate Ex. 10, Treatment Record Ex. 11 to 148 etc. The evidence of claimant remained unrebutted, inasmuch as, the respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. ;