New India Assurance Company and anr. Vs. Renu Walia and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - she further alleged that stitches had also been given on her fore-head and that a permanents can had been left on her fore-head and that due to grafting, her stomach as well as back bone were cut and stitched leaving permanents car on the stomach. it was further alleged that she being president of the lions club, ambala city, had been participating in other social activities, but after the accident her life had become dependent upon others and was leading a miserable life. the testimony of this witness also reveals that renu walia claimant was advised another operation for the removal of the k-nail from the right femur as well as for the removal of the screw from the left femur. this doctor had clearly stated that die (date which was inserted was imported one and the same must have cost rs. 3. weakness of left knee muscles by 30%. according to this doctor, renu walia claimant bad suffered disability to the ex-tent of 60.6% in both of her lower limbs. vinod singal (pw-4) had clearly opined that since renu walia had suffered multiple fractures, therefore, she was likely to remain in this very condition for the remaining period of her life and there were no chances of recoupment it is also, revealed from the testimony of this witness that during the period renu walia remained admitted in the pgi, she remained in the private ward and that no medicine was provided to her by this institute, and that a sum of rs. her life has become totally miserable and she will have to lead a handicapped life throughout depending upon others.orderamarjeet chaudhary, j.1.this order will dispose of fao no. 1165 of 1985 filed by the new india assurance co. ltd., and cross-objection no. 6-cii of 1986 filed by smt. renu walia, claimant-objector the have arisen out of the common award of the motor accident claims, tribunal, of kurukshetra.2. in the appeal, the challenge to the award is that the motor accident claims tribunal, kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) vide its award dated27.5.1985 had awarded rs. 1,43,000/- as compensation to smt. renu walia, under various heads which is on the higher side.3. in the cross-objection, the plea taken by the claimant-objector is that the tribunal had not awarded sufficient compensation for the injuries sustained by her. according to the claimant-objector, the tribunal while awarding compensation had not taken into consideration the nature of injuries, permanent disability suffered by her, expenses incurred on medical treatment, for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, expenditure to be incurred on future treatment, transport and for general damages. therefore, the claimant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation to rs. 2 lacs from rs. 1,43,000/-.4. the brief history of the case which led to the filing of the appeal and cross objection is that smt. renu walia, had filed a claim petition before the motor accident claims tribunal, kurukshetra claiming rs. two lacs, as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a car accident on 242.1984. in the cross-objection, the claimant objector has restricted her claim to rs. two lacs. however, the motor accident claims tribunal, vide its award dated 275:1985 had awarded a compensation of rs. 1,43,000/- on various heads which read as under: -(i) for expenditure incurred rs. 35,000/-(ii) for future operation rs. 5,000/-(iii) amount of medical expenditure to be incurred rs. 5,000/-(iv) for pain and suffering rs. 20,000/-(v) for loss of enjoyment of life. rs. 20,000/-(vi) expenditure be incurred on transportation in future rs. 10,000/-(vii) general damages @ rs. 250/- p.m. for 16 years rs. 48,000/-------total:- rs. 1,43,000/-------in addition, the claimant renu walia was also awarded interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation.5. the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car no. pju 3107 in which besides the claimant renu walia, three other claimants in different claim petitions before the tribunal, namely kamaljit singh, sarswati devi and ved kumari had also sustained injuries in the said accident. the tribunal had awarded a sum of rs. 3,000/- to kamaljit singh, rs. 7000/- to saraswati devi and rs. 5000/- to ved kumari as compensation with 12% pa interest from the date of their claim petitions till realisation. the liability to pay compensation was joint and several and respondents no. 1 to 3 were held liable to pay the said compensation. the tribunal further held that in terms of the policy of insurance exhibit r-2, the liability of the insurance company was unlimited as it had undertaken to issue a policy indemnifyingmohan lal and company, appellant no. 2, owner of the offending vehicle for unlimited amount.6. the case of the claimant before the tribunal was that in the accident, she sustained fracture in the left leg as also a fracture of the femur of the right leg and that she. had also sustained multiple abrasions besides other grievous and simple injuries. it was alleged that a sum of more than rs. 40,000/- had already been spent on her treatment and that her treatment at that time was continuing. she further alleged that stitches had also been given on her fore-head and that a permanents can had been left on her fore-head and that due to grafting, her stomach as well as back bone were cut and stitched leaving permanents car on the stomach. it was also alleged that she had been permanently disputed and could not attend to her daily routine and that her matrimonial life had also been impaired. she had suffered pain both physical and mental and that she was left with no social life, ft was also the case of the claimant that she had developed an inferiority complex as a result of the injuries suffered by her. it was further alleged that she being president of the lions club, ambala city, had been participating in other social activities, but after the accident her life had become dependent upon others and was leading a miserable life. it was also asserted that she had to employ a male servant on a monthly salary of rs. 500/- and a teacher for teaching her son who was studying in nursery class and had to pay rs. 150/-per month to him.7. in order to substantiate her claim, renu walia, claimant, had produced dr. o.p. mohindru, who was running a private clinic at shahbad. this witness while appearing as pw-1 had stated that on 24.2.1984 renu walia was brought in injured condition to his hospital and she was given first aid. he further stated that he had charged rs. 130/- for her treatment.8. dr. p.s. gandhi, pw-1, had stated that on 14.2.1984 renu walia was admitted in the civil hospital, ambala city at about 11.20 pm and she had injuries on both the lower limbs and on the scalp. according to this doctor, there was a fracture of the shaft of the right femur and supra, condylar fracture of the left femur. he further deposed that steinman pins were passed in both the lower limbs and this patient was referred the pgi, chandigarh on 26.2.1984.9.the claimant, in support of her claim, had also produced dr. vinod singal. this witness while appearing as pw-4 had stated that renu walia was admitted in the pgi, chandigarh. this witness found following injuries on her person:-1. fracture shaft right femur.2. commuted fracture lower end of left femur.3. fracture left patella.4. fracture pubic ramus.5. multiple lacerated wounds over the forehead and scalp.this witness had further stated that on 5.3.1984 open reduction and internal fixation of the fractures of right femur was done and during this operation'k' nail (khotscher nail) was inserted in the right femur. this doctor had also deposed that on 14.3.1984 open reduction and internal fixation with plate and screws and bone grafting was done in respect of the fracture of the left femur. according to this witness, the plate and the screws in the left femur were removed on 21.3.1984 and that one screw was still there in the left femur. this witness had also stated that k-nail was also there in the right femur.the testimony of this witness also reveals that renu walia claimant was advised another operation for the removal of the k-nail from the right femur as well as for the removal of the screw from the left femur. this doctor had clearly stated that die (date which was inserted was imported one and the same must have cost rs. 3500/- alongwith the screws. the claimant, who was discharged on 3.4.1984, was again admitted in the pgi on 20.7.1984. according to this witness, renu walia claimant was operated upon for the third time and was discharged on 23.7.1984. this witness had further deposed that after two weeks renu walia had come to the pgi, chandigarh for the removal of the stitches. this doctor had observed the following disabilities:-1. limitation of knee movements on right side from 0.20 and beyond restricted.2. limitation of knee movements left side from 0.10' beyond restricted.3. weakness of left knee muscles by 30%.according to this doctor, renu walia claimant bad suffered disability to the ex-tent of 60.6% in both of her lower limbs. when the claimant was examined by this doctor on 13.12.1984, she was advised to walk with the help of crutches. as per testimony of this witness, the claimant could not move her right knee beyond 20 degree and her left knee beyond 10 degree. there was also weakness of the left knee muscles to the extent of 30%. this witness had stated in dear terms that since the claimant could not bend her knees, so was difficult for her to sit without the help of an attendant. even she was not in a position to walk in the house without the help of he crutches. dr. vinod singal (pw-4) had clearly opined that since renu walia had suffered multiple fractures, therefore, she was likely to remain in this very condition for the remaining period of her life and there were no chances of recoupment it is also, revealed from the testimony of this witness that during the period renu walia remained admitted in the pgi, she remained in the private ward and that no medicine was provided to her by this institute, and that a sum of rs. 100/- per day was charged for a private room given to her.10. in view of the statement of dr. vinod singal (pw-4) this court has reached the conclusion that renu walia claimant, had suffered multiple fractures, site was operated upon thrice in the pgi and had suffered60.6% permanent disability. besides paying rs. 3500/- as the cost of imported plate and screws inserted while doing bone grafting, the claimant had to incur huge expenditure for the purchase of medicines and charges of the private room. her life has become totally miserable and she will have to lead a handicapped life throughout depending upon others.11. taking into .consideration the permanent disability, nature of the injuries and expenses incurred on medical treatment, i am of the view that the tribunal had not awarded adequate compensation to her. in this view of the matter, the claimant deserves higher compensation. as such, the cross-objections are allowed and the cross-objector is awarded rs. 60,000/- for pain and suffering instead of rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the motor accidents claims tribunal, rs. 10,000/- instead of rs. 5,000/- which the objector had to incur on future medical treatment and rs. 60,000/- instead of rs. 48,000/- as general damages. in other words, the claimant shall be entitled to rs. 57,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the tribunal with 12% interest from the date of the claim petition.12. the award of the motor accident claims tribunal, kurukshetra, dated 275.1985 is modified to the extent indicated above.13. the appeal of the new india assurance co. fails and the same is hereby dismissed.14. there will, however, be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1.This order will dispose of FAO No. 1165 of 1985 filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Cross-Objection No. 6-CII of 1986 filed by Smt. Renu Walia, claimant-Objector the have arisen out of the common award of the Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, of Kurukshetra.

2. In the appeal, the challenge to the award is that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) vide its award dated27.5.1985 had awarded Rs. 1,43,000/- as compensation to Smt. Renu Walia, under various heads which is on the higher side.

3. In the cross-objection, the plea taken by the claimant-objector is that the Tribunal had not awarded sufficient compensation for the injuries sustained by her. According to the claimant-objector, the Tribunal while awarding compensation had not taken into consideration the nature of injuries, permanent disability suffered by her, expenses incurred on medical treatment, for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, expenditure to be incurred on future treatment, transport and for general damages. Therefore, the claimant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 2 lacs from Rs. 1,43,000/-.

4. The brief history of the case which led to the filing of the appeal and cross objection is that Smt. Renu Walia, had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra claiming Rs. two lacs, as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a car accident on 242.1984. In the cross-objection, the claimant objector has restricted her claim to Rs. two lacs. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide its award dated 275:1985 had awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,43,000/- on various heads which read as under: -

(i) For expenditure incurred Rs. 35,000/-(ii) For future operation Rs. 5,000/-(iii) Amount of medical expenditure to be incurred Rs. 5,000/-(iv) For pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-(v) For loss of enjoyment of life. Rs. 20,000/-(vi) Expenditure be incurred on transportation in future Rs. 10,000/-(vii) General damages @ Rs. 250/- P.M. for 16 years Rs. 48,000/-------Total:- Rs. 1,43,000/-------

In addition, the claimant Renu Walia was also awarded interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of claim petition till realisation.

5. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car No. PJU 3107 in which besides the claimant Renu Walia, three other claimants in different claim petitions before the Tribunal, namely Kamaljit Singh, Sarswati Devi and Ved Kumari had also sustained injuries in the said accident. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to Kamaljit Singh, Rs. 7000/- to Saraswati Devi and Rs. 5000/- to Ved Kumari as compensation with 12% PA interest from the date of their claim petitions till realisation. The liability to pay compensation was joint and several and respondents No. 1 to 3 were held liable to pay the said compensation. The Tribunal further held that in terms of the Policy of Insurance Exhibit R-2, the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited as it had undertaken to issue a policy indemnifyingMohan Lal and Company, appellant No. 2, owner of the offending vehicle for unlimited amount.

6. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that in the accident, she sustained fracture in the left leg as also a fracture of the femur of the right leg and that she. had also sustained multiple abrasions besides other grievous and simple injuries. It was alleged that a sum of more than Rs. 40,000/- had already been spent on her treatment and that her treatment at that time was continuing. She further alleged that stitches had also been given on her fore-head and that a permanents can had been left on her fore-head and that due to grafting, her stomach as well as back bone were cut and stitched leaving permanents car on the stomach. It was also alleged that she had been permanently disputed and could not attend to her daily routine and that her matrimonial life had also been impaired. She had suffered pain both physical and mental and that she was left with no social life, ft was also the case of the claimant that she had developed an inferiority complex as a result of the injuries suffered by her. It was further alleged that she being President of the Lions Club, Ambala City, had been participating in other social activities, but after the accident her life had become dependent upon others and was leading a miserable life. It was also asserted that she had to employ a male servant on a monthly salary of Rs. 500/- and a Teacher for teaching her son who was studying in nursery class and had to pay Rs. 150/-per month to him.

7. In order to substantiate her claim, Renu Walia, claimant, had produced Dr. O.P. Mohindru, who was running a private clinic at Shahbad. This witness while appearing as PW-1 had stated that on 24.2.1984 Renu Walia was brought in injured condition to his hospital and she was given first aid. He further stated that he had charged Rs. 130/- for her treatment.

8. Dr. P.S. Gandhi, PW-1, had stated that on 14.2.1984 Renu Walia was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ambala City at about 11.20 PM and she had injuries on both the lower limbs and on the scalp. According to this Doctor, There was a fracture of the shaft of the right femur and supra, condylar fracture of the left femur. He further deposed that steinman pins were passed in both the lower limbs and this patient was referred the PGI, Chandigarh on 26.2.1984.

9.The claimant, in support of her claim, had also produced Dr. Vinod Singal. This witness while appearing as PW-4 had stated that Renu Walia was admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh. This witness found following injuries on her person:-

1. Fracture shaft right femur.

2. Commuted fracture lower end of left femur.

3. Fracture left patella.

4. Fracture pubic ramus.

5. Multiple lacerated wounds over the forehead and scalp.

This witness had further stated that on 5.3.1984 open reduction and internal fixation of the fractures of right femur was done and during this operation'K' nail (khotscher Nail) was inserted in the right femur. This Doctor had also deposed that on 14.3.1984 open reduction and internal fixation with plate and screws and bone grafting was done in respect of the fracture of the left femur. According to this witness, the plate and the screws in the left femur were removed on 21.3.1984 and that one screw was still there in the left femur. This witness had also stated that K-nail was also there in the right femur.

The testimony of this witness also reveals that Renu Walia claimant was advised another operation for the removal of the K-nail from the right femur as well as for the removal of the screw from the left femur. This Doctor had clearly stated that die (date which was inserted was imported one and the same must have cost Rs. 3500/- alongwith the screws. The claimant, who was discharged on 3.4.1984, was again admitted in the PGI on 20.7.1984. According to this witness, Renu Walia claimant was operated upon for the third time and was discharged on 23.7.1984. This witness had further deposed that after two weeks Renu Walia had come to the PGI, Chandigarh for the removal of the stitches. This Doctor had observed the following disabilities:-

1. Limitation of knee movements on right side from 0.20 and beyond restricted.

2. Limitation of knee movements left side from 0.10' beyond restricted.

3. Weakness of left knee muscles by 30%.

According to this Doctor, Renu Walia claimant bad suffered disability to the ex-tent of 60.6% in both of her lower limbs. When the claimant was examined by this Doctor on 13.12.1984, she was advised to walk with the help of crutches. As per testimony of this witness, the claimant could not move her right knee beyond 20 degree and her left knee beyond 10 degree. There was also weakness of the left knee muscles to the extent of 30%. This witness had stated in dear terms that since the claimant could not bend her knees, so was difficult for her to sit without the help of an attendant. Even she was not in a position to walk in the house without the help of he crutches. Dr. Vinod Singal (PW-4) had clearly opined that since Renu Walia had suffered multiple fractures, therefore, she was likely to remain in this very condition for the remaining period of her life and there were no chances of recoupment It is also, revealed from the testimony of this witness that during the period Renu Walia remained admitted in the PGI, she remained in the Private Ward and that no medicine was provided to her by this Institute, and that a sum of Rs. 100/- per day was charged for a private room given to her.

10. In view of the statement of Dr. Vinod Singal (PW-4) this Court has reached the conclusion that Renu Walia claimant, had suffered multiple fractures, site was operated upon thrice in the PGI and had suffered60.6% permanent disability. Besides paying Rs. 3500/- as the cost of imported plate and screws inserted while doing bone grafting, the claimant had to incur huge expenditure for the purchase of medicines and charges of the private room. Her life has become totally miserable and she will have to lead a handicapped life throughout depending upon others.

11. Taking into .consideration the permanent disability, nature of the injuries and expenses incurred on medical treatment, I am of the view that the Tribunal had not awarded adequate compensation to her. In this view of the matter, the claimant deserves higher compensation. As such, the cross-objections are allowed and the cross-objector is awarded Rs. 60,000/- for pain and suffering instead of Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- which the objector had to incur on future medical treatment and Rs. 60,000/- instead of Rs. 48,000/- as general damages. In other words, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 57,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal with 12% interest from the date of the claim petition.

12. The Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, dated 275.1985 is modified to the extent indicated above.

13. The appeal of the New India Assurance Co. fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

14. There will, however, be no order as to costs.