Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1419 (PNJ)

Jit Ram v. State of Punjab

2000-11-21

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Jit Ram has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the award dated 5.4.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur who partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, payable by respondents No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Jit Ram, the present appellant, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Punjab State through its Secretary, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur and Tarsem Singh driver by making allegations that on 14.5.1992 the appellant was coming from Pathankot towards Sarna on Scooter No. PB-35/1797 and when he reached near petrol pump of Harnam Singh, respondent No. 3, while driving bus No. PJG 2007 rashly and negligently without blowing any horn struck against the scooter of the appellant and as a result of that the appellant fell down and received multiple injuries. The learned counsel- appellant was rushed to Civil Hospital, Pathankot where both the legs were amputated due to the injuries. The petitioner alleges that he was 60 years of age at the time of the accident. He was self-employed and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. He spent Rs. 40,000/- on his medical treatment. A report was also lodged with the police station Sadar Pathankot and FIR No. 109 dated 14.5.1992 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered. The petitioner with the above allegations claimed compensation to the tune of rupees eight lacs. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. According to the respondents Bus No. PJG 2007 started from Udhampur on 14.5.1992 at 8 A.M. and when this bus reached near Pathankot by-pass near a petrol pump the bus took its turn from the petrol pump and one scooter rider tried to over-take the bus from the left side and struck against the bus and received injuries and that scooter driver was driving the scooter rashly and could not control. the scooter and the bus driver was not at fault in this accident. the scooter and the bus driver was not at fault in this accident. Tarsem Singh, respondent-driver also filed separate written statement and he pleaded that the petitioner-appellant received the injuries due to his own rash and negligent driving and a false FIR was registered against him. The petitioner did not spend Rs. 40, 000/- on his treatment as claimed by him. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues : 1. Whether the applicants received injuries due to rash and negligent act of driving of respondent No. 3 by driving bus No. PJG 2007 ? OPA 2. Whether the applicants are entitled to damages. If so, to what amount and from which respondent ? OPA 3. Relief. The parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence. Under issue No. 1 it was observed by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner received the injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3. Under issue No. 2, the Court held that petitioner-appellant is entitled to the compensation amounting to rupees one lac. 4. Not satisfied with the award the present appeal has been filed. 5. I have heard Shri Rajive Bhalla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, DAG, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case 6. On going through the record of this case, I am satisfied that this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has not been able to show from the record that the accident took place on account of the fault of the appellant Shri Jit Ram, who appeared as PW-2. If we go through the statement of Shri Jit Ram, coupled that the statement of Shri Manohar Lal, I am satisfied that this accident has taken place on account of the negligence of Shri Tarsem Singh. He has not taken proper care while driving the bus and I fully endorse the reasons adopted by the Tribunal when it had attributed the negligence to Shri Tarsem Singh. 7. The next point for determination in this appeal would be whether the compensation of Rupees one lac awarded by the Tribunal is just or not ? 8. He has not taken proper care while driving the bus and I fully endorse the reasons adopted by the Tribunal when it had attributed the negligence to Shri Tarsem Singh. 7. The next point for determination in this appeal would be whether the compensation of Rupees one lac awarded by the Tribunal is just or not ? 8. Jit Ram while appearing as PW-2 stated that he had been doing the business in the name of M/s Guru Nanak Furniture Mart Sarna. In addition to that he had been carrying on the business of furniture and sale of wood and coal. He had also a tractor and had installed Coal Bhatties. The tractor was kept for carrying the goods. The entire business depends upon him and he had been earning Rs. 7,000/8,000 per month. In cross-examination he admitted that there were three partners in his business and a partnership deed was also executed regarding the same. A sale register was maintained about his business but he had not brought the same in the Court. Also it has been admitted that he has no licence regarding the sale of coal and he had also not been maintaining any register regarding the sale of coal. Also it has come in the statement of appellant that he had no account regarding his income. According to him, the same is with his counsel. 9. In this view of the matter, we can safely say that the best evidence with regard to the income has been withheld by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant himself that he has spent Rs. 40,000/- on his medical treatment. Unfortunately, he has not produced those cash memos of the medicines from which an inference could be drawn that the petitioner incurred a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Nevertheless the petitioner remained admitted in the hospital and a reasonable inference can always be drawn that the appellant himself has incurred the amount on his medical treatment. 10. With regard to the disability, there is no dispute. Dr. J.S. Bhinder, PW-1 has proved the disability certificate of the appellant. According to the certificate Ex. A-1, there was amputation of the right leg above the knee and there was also amputation of the left leg below the knee. The doctor has further certified that the appellant has suffered a permanent disability of 100%. Dr. J.S. Bhinder, PW-1 has proved the disability certificate of the appellant. According to the certificate Ex. A-1, there was amputation of the right leg above the knee and there was also amputation of the left leg below the knee. The doctor has further certified that the appellant has suffered a permanent disability of 100%. It is true that appellant was 60 years of age at the time of the accident and further that the Doctor Shri Bhinder PW-1 deposed "this patient can do any work while sitting and he can also work as shopkeeper." However, this Court can well imagine the plight of a person who has been deprived from both his legs. He is a person on paper only. He cannot enjoy his life. He has to remain dependent for all time to come. The legs are too vital organs of the body which have been lost. Even for going to shop he requires the assistance of somebody. 11. Keeping all these facts into consideration and specillay the extent of disability suffered by the appellant on account of the loss of his two vital limbs, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation and I am of the opinion that the just compensation in this case should not be less than Rs. 1,20,000/-. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- by way of just compensation along with interest at the rate of 12%. The interest shall be calculated from the date of the filing of the petition till payment. Any amount already paid by the respondents to the appellant, shall be deducted from the awarded amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Appeal partly allowed.