C.M Nayar, J.:— The present judgment will dispose of three appeal F.A.O Nos. 270 of 1981 (Sandeep Taneja v. State of Haryana), 271 of 1981 (Usha Taneja v. State of Haryana) and 272 of 1981 (Dr. S.P Taneja v. State of Haryana). These appeals arise out of the three claim petitions filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, and arise from the same accident. Dr. S.P Taneja and Dr. Usha Taneja are both qualified doctors. They along with their son Sandeep Taneja who was about two months old at the time of accident sustained multiple injuries and fractures on 23.4.1974 at about 2.45 p.m Dr. Taneja was driving his scooter No. DHU 2023 at Patel Road, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and his wife, Dr. Usha Taneja with their two months old son were sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter. The averments made in the petition are that when the scooter was near the bus-stop, East Patel Nagar, Main Road, New Delhi, the jeep bearing registration No. HRM 388 owned by the State of Haryana, Chandigarh and driven by Avtar Singh, respondent No. 2, came from the left side downward road, Patel Road and caused the accident with the scooter. It was alleged that accident took place because of rash and reckless driving of the jeep on the part of respondent No. 2. The appellant was on the left side of the road and was driving at a slow speed. Dr. S.P Taneja was employed as Doctor-in-charge in the Ramesh Nagar Dispensary in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and at the relevant time was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,200/- per month. Dr. Usha Taneja was employed as the doctor at Tilak Nagar dispensary in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and drawing a salary of Rs. 900/- per month. The injured after the accident were removed to Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi. Dr. S.P Taneja suffered bruises on his body and also rupture of his spleen for which he had been operated upon twice and had not still recovered completely. He remained under treatment and took leave from office for four months and the treatment continues. It was alleged that he spent Rs. 10,000/- till the date of filing the petition before the Tribunal for treatment and purchase of medicines. He had been permanently disabled on account of removal of his spleen which had got ruptured in the accident and resultantly there had been deformation in his chest. He claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

2. Dr. Usha Taneja alleged that both her legs were fractured in the accident and she sustained bruises all over her body. It was alleged that because of the injuries sustained in the accident she was not fit to move about. She had been under plaster for more than four months and had to be on leave from her office from the date of accident till the filing of the petition on 21.10.1974 Therefore, it was alleged that she was absent from duty for a period of 6½ months. It was further stated that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- had been spent till the filing of the petition on her treatment and purchase of medicines. She had been permanently disabled in her both legs which got fractured in the accident and compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed in her petition. Sandeep Taneja filed the petition through his natural guardian Dr. S.P Taneja and claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on the allegations that he received a crack fracture left clavicle with osteomyelitis left femur. Identical written statements were filed in all the three petitions. Respondent No. 1 admitted the fact that the jeep in question belonged to the State of Haryana but denied that it was involved in the accident. This respondent pleaded that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2 and alleged that it was due to the carelessness on the part of Dr. S.P Taneja who himself was responsible for the alleged accident. The amount of compensation claimed was excessive and unduly inflated. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:

(1) Whether S.P Taneja/Usha Taneja/Sandeep Taneja sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. HRM 388 on the part of respondent No. 2?

(2) Whether notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, is not essential?

(3) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and from whom?

(4) Relief

3. The Tribunal disposed of issue No. 1 and held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep on the part of respondent No. 2. The learned Judge referred to the evidence as well as the photographs which were taken after the accident and came to the conclusion that the jeep after suddenly emerging from the side lane and entering into the main road came into contact with the rear portion of the scooter, and that no horn had been blown by the jeep driver, and the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep on the part of respondent No. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one has appeared for the respondents. I have perused the evidence on record and am in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal which are affirmed.

4. The respective claims of the appellants may now be dealt with.

F.A.O No. 270 of 1981 (Sandeep Taneja v. State of Haryana)

5. Master Sandeep Taneja who was about two months old suffered a crack fracture left clavicle with osteomyelitis left femur and was under treatment for six weeks with plaster and bandage and thereafter he had been receiving physiotherapy treatment for three weeks. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as a reasonable sum for the injuries suffered by him. As no documentary evidence regarding expenses on his treatment and purchase of medicines had been brought on record, a sum of Rs. 500/- was awarded on that account as it could not be said that his parents would not have spent any amount on his medicare and treatment. The child fully recovered from the injuries sustained and in the facts and circumstances of the present case the award of Rs. 4,500 in his favour is just, fair and reasonable. The same is accordingly affirmed as no other cogent material or evidence has been referred to me which calls for interference in the present appeal.

F.A.O No. 271 of 1981 (Dr. Usha Taneja v. State of Haryana)

6. The appellant-claimant Dr. Usha Taneja who has filed this petition has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is alleged that her both legs had been fractured in the accident and she had sustained bruises all over the body. It was also mentioned that due to the injuries suffered by her in the accident she was not fit to move. She had been under plaster for more than four months and had to be on leave from her office from the date of accident till the filing of the petition on 21.10.1974 The sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been spent till the filing of the petition towards her treatment and purchase of medicines. According to her she had been permanently disabled in her both legs.

7. The learned Judge assessed the evidence on record and the nature and gravity of injuries received by the appellant coupled with the fact that she had been operated a number of times. It was apparent that she must have suffered and borne a lot of pain and suffering on that account. She was a young doctor at the time of the accident and was on the threshold of her service career and she had to be on leave for about six and a half months for which period she had been without pay and lost her seniority and position in service. The Tribunal awarded following amounts in respect of each head:

(1) Pain and suffering undergone by the appellant Rs. 10,000/- (2) Loss of salary for the period she remained on leave Rs. 5,000/- (3) Loss of increments Rs. 5,000/- (4) Towards expenses done on the treatment of the appellant till the time of filing the petition Rs. 1,000/- (5) Conveyance expenses, special diet and engagement of an attendant from April 1974 to October 1974 Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs. 23,000/-

8. The evidence on record has been referred to me wherein it is clearly indicated that the appellant had suffered a compound fracture of right tibia and there was tenderness and swelling over her left leg. In the opinion of Dr. V.K Kapoor, PW 28, of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital the injury was a serious one. Dr. M.G Abbot, PW 15, deposed that he had treated Dr. Usha Taneja for fracture of her both the legs in his private clinic. She had suffered fracture of both the bones of both the legs and that he had operated her. The said witness further deposed that her legs had been kept in plaster for a period of four to five months and later she had been advised physiotherapy exercise treatment for a period of two to three months. The appellant also appeared as her own witness as PW 18. She deposed that the fractures were reduced and the bone was closed and the stitches were applied and above knee plaster had been applied on her both the legs. She was admitted in the Temple Nursing Home, Ansari Road, Delhi, on 4.5.1974 under the care of Dr. M.G Abbot where she had been operated upon and open reduction was done and the plaster had been applied again. The learned Judge accepted the nature and gravity of injuries received by the appellant which resulted in repeated operations and it was apparent that she may have suffered a lot of pain as well as received setback in her service career. There was no denial of the admitted fact that appellant had been on leave from the date of accident till 1.11.1974, i.e, about six and a half months. It was further deposed that during most of her leave period, she had been without pay. The other setback was that the appellant had to join as a fresh entrant after the expiry of her leave period as she was not entitled to any extraordinary leave beyond three months and in view of the fact that she had been away for about 7 months, she had to be treated as fresh entrant which meant that she lost her seniority in the job to 55 other doctors who had joined later than her.

9. The facts are glaring. The admitted case is that the appellant suffered serious injuries and she had to be repeatedly treated in hospital. In this background the question that now arises is as to whether the compensation awarded in the sum of Rs. 23,000/- is just, fair and adequate or it requires to be enhanced in the facts of the present case. The appellant has to be compensated for expenses already incurred for treatment, cost of caring and for future expenses, pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, loss of earnings including probable future earnings, etc. The appellant was under the care of leading orthopaedic surgeons and it is not always possible to keep a mathematical account of the expenses incurred. There is no doubt that when there are compound fractures, the plasters have to be applied and physiotherapy treatment is to be given to the patient after the plasters are removed. The conclusion which is drawn by the Tribunal that since the appellant and her husband were both doctors they were not charged any professional fees by their co-professional doctors and the receipts for all the expenses had not been brought on record, the compensation could not be awarded for the amount claimed, i.e, Rs. 1,00,000/-. This finding has to be assessed on the basis of available evidence, oral and documentary, which has been placed on record. The relevant evidence has already been referred to above. There is no rebuttal with regard to the nature of injuries and treatment received by the appellant.

10. The question that now arises is as to whether the amounts awarded by the Tribunal as stated can be held to be just, fair and reasonable. There is no dispute that the assessment of damages has to be based on different heads as has been correctly formulated by the learned Judge. The difficult task, however, arises in assessing the sum of money which the law can recognise is just and fair for the professional person who has just passed through a crisis by an unfortunate accident for which the appellant was not responsible. The Tribunal has clearly accepted the entire evidence on record, particularly the fact that the appellant had to be operated number of times and she had to suffer a lot of pain and suffering on that account. The appellant was also on leave for a period of over six months and there is evidence on record to indicate that for most of the period she had been without pay. The loss of pay as well as of seniority is not in any way controverted as is indicated from the reading of the judgment. The appellant claimed a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and did not choose to divide the sum under different heads. The amount is somewhat exaggerated on the basis of available evidence on record. There is, however, no mathematical formula to award compensation in such cases. There is always an element of guesswork in making the assessment which has to be co-related to the facts of each case and the available evidence on record.

11. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the evidence on record I will assess the compensation in respect of each head as follows:

(1) Pain and suffering undergone by the appellant Rs. 20,000/- (2) Loss of earnings including future earnings Rs. 10,000/- (3) Towards expenses done on the treatment of the appellant till the time of filing the petition Rs. 5,000/- (4) Conveyance expenses, special diet and engagement of an attendant from April, 1974 to October, 1974 Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 45,000/-

12. The appellant is, therefore, held entitled to the total claim in the sum of Rs. 45,000/-.

F.A.O 272 of 1981 (Dr. S.P Taneja v. State of Haryana)

13. The case of Dr. Taneja is more serious and pathetic. He has been the main victim of the accident and he suffered the following injuries:

(1) Abrasion left side chest 15 cm. × 10 cm.

(2) Abrasion left side abdomen 12 cm. × 8 cm.

(3) Abrasion left upper arm 8 cm. × 8 cm.

(4) Abrasion left skin of tibia.

14. The appellant was admitted in the hospital and an emergency operation had to be performed because his condition was suggestive of internal haemorrhage and the condition of the patient gradually deteriorated over the next 1½ hours and he was operated upon and it was found that there was a lot of blood in the cavity coming from ruptured spleen and splenectomy was done and abdomen was closed. The appellant recovered but some pain persisted in the chest. The Tribunal has very elaborately dealt with the evidence on record to indicate the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the appellant. Para 30 of the award may be reproduced which reads as follows:

(30) Dr. Gopi Nath, PW 3, of the A.I.I.M.S, New Delhi, deposed that the patient, Dr. S.P Taneja, had been admitted in the said hospital on 3.6.1974 He deposed that on the date of his admission in the A.I.I.M.S the patient was found to be having fever and pus was draining out of a tube. He was accordingly operated on 22.6.1974 to find out the cause of the drainage of pus which, according to this doctor, had been persisting from the time of the first operation on 23.4.1974 It was found in the second operation that there is a pocket of pus and the same had been cleaned out and a fresh tube had been put and the wound was repaired and closed. The patient was discharged from the said hospital on 27.7.1974 and was asked to continue to attend to medical aid as the drainage tube left inside had to be removed in stages. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the nature of the injuries showed that they could be caused by a road accident. In his opinion, it was a major accident considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured. Dr. R.N Kataria, PW 20, is a private surgeon and he deposed that this petitioner had been under his treatment since April, 1979. According to him, the petitioner suffered from a persistent sinus in the left chest leading to a cavity. According to him, it will require a major operation which may or may not cure the patient. In his opinion, the after-effects of this injury could be (i) abnormalities in blood formation, (ii) blood destruction, (iii) reduction in the ability of the body to respond and react in injuries where there is blood loss, (iv) deficiency in resistance to infection, (v) the presence of continual pus formation may produce changes of an amyloid nature in the body reducing the function of the vital organ such as the liver and the kidneys and (vi) reduction in the energy and ability to work. He also deposed that the petitioner cannot undertake any work requiring effort or strength as a result of the diminished respiratory excursion of the left chest. The cross-examination of this witness is not at all directed against the opinion given by this doctor as regards the nature of injuries and the after-effects thereof. PW 4 is the official from Tirath Ram Shah Hospital, Delhi, who deposed that the record of admission and discharge for the year 1974 was not available as the same had been destroyed due to the floods in the city. This witness proved the documents of the hospital as Exh. PW 4/2 to Exh. PW 4/6 out of which the bill Exh. PW 4/2 indicated that the petitioner had been admitted in this hospital for 4 days from 13.5.1974 to 16.5.1974

15. Furthermore, in para 32 the Tribunal has accepted on the basis of the evidence on record that the nature of injuries, the treatment, the operations and hospitalisation of the appellant reveal that the rupture of spleen was indeed a very major injury which could have caused death of the appellant if there had been no timely attention or proper treatment given to him. The removal of spleen is not denied. This is a vital part of the body though the appellant is able to survive and continue in his professional career. It has also been referred to by the Tribunal that even the present state of health of the appellant required another major operation but the same had to be avoided for fear of life. The pain and suffering was held to be indescribable and the Tribunal on ultimate analysis came to the conclusion that no amount of financial award can suitably compensate the appellant for the injuries sustained by him and consequent pain and suffering, physical and emotional, which the appellant must have suffered in the wake of accident. The learned Judge though accepted the evidence on record and held that the injuries were of a serious nature, awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The further amounts to which the appellant was held entitled was assessed at Rs. 6,600/- and Rs. 4,000/- for loss of salary and for purchase of medicines respectively. The total amount assessed in favour of the appellant was Rs. 50,600/-.

16. The appellant claimed a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- which included the amount for pain and suffering, medical expenses, which the appellant claimed in his statement at Rs. 50,000/- as well as for loss of earnings as a result of the absence from office for as many as 189 days.

17. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant suffered from serious and grave injuries and there is a continuous threat to his life. He is discharging his duties as a medical man in a hospital run by the MCD but there is always an imminent danger of relapse due to the permanent disability which he suffered by removal of his spleen. It is established from the record that the appellant requires constant care and there is no permanent cure for the disability which he will continue to suffer in his life. The learned Judge has not disbelieved the seriousness of the disability and has clearly held that no amount of financial award can suitably compensate the appellant for the injuries sustained by him and particularly the removal of the spleen which is vital part of human body. In this background compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for pain and suffering is correctly held to be minimal which the appellant was held entitled to. It cannot be understood as to how the Tribunal chose to award this figure when the appellant had only claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under all the heads consolidated together. The appellant could be compensated for pain and suffering undergone by him as well as for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life in view of the permanent disability which he will continue to suffer so long as he lives. The compensation for pain and suffering has to be assessed on the basis of the facts of each case. The appellant herein was a young doctor and he suffered the serious injuries resulting in depression at the threshold of his career by this unfortunate accident. The adverse effect on his future life as a result of the disability will continue and it has been brought to my notice that he has already suffered a heart attack for which he was admitted in G.B Pant Hospital in the year 1983. The Tribunal has further rejected the claim of Rs. 50,000 which the appellant alleged to have spent on his medical treatment and only awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- merely on the plea that the appellant had been given consultation free by many doctors. That may be so but certain amount is also required to be spent on diet, conveyance and medicines and in this background the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- for all the heads including expenses already incurred as well as future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, and loss of earnings including future earnings, etc., does not seem to be in any manner exaggerated.

18. The appellant has been fair and reasonable to claim this amount and there is no reason to deny him the same. The appellant is, therefore, held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation as claimed in the petition before the Tribunal. In the ultimate analysis the following amounts are awarded in favour of each of the appellants:

(a) Sandeep Taneja Rs. 4,500/- (b) Dr. Usha Taneja Rs. 45,000/- (c) Dr. S.P Taneja Rs. 1,00,000/-

19. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The amount which is disbursed to the appellants shall be taken into account while working out the amount now held payable. The appeals are allowed in the above terms with costs which are quantified at a consolidated figure of Rs. 5,000/-.

20. Appeals allowed.