Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1461 (PNJ)

Subhash Chander v. Rakesh Kumar

2000-11-28

R.L.ANAND

body2000
ORDER R.L. Anand, J. - Subhash Chander has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the award dated 9.11.1985 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal, which awarded a sum of Rs. 32,000/- in favour of the petitioner and against the owner, driver and the Insurance Company jointly and severally. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. The accident took place on 25.9.1984 at about 3.50 P.M. near Delhi bye-pass G.T. Road, Karnal between Truck No. HYC 4442 and Scooter No. DHW 6344 due to which Subhash Chander appellant who was a pillion rider received the injuries. On the date of the accident the appellant was going along with Rishi Pal PW3 on scooter No. DHW 6344 from his village to Karnal. Rishi Pal was driving the scooter while the appellant was sitting on the pillion. When they reached near Delhi bye-pass, on G.T. Road, Karnal at about 3.50 P.M. then offending truck No. HYC 4442 came from the Karnal side and was going towards Delhi side. It was being driven by Rakesh Kumar respondent in a rash and careless manner. The driver of the truck first hit the vehicle against the Tonga and then hit the cyclist and then hit the scooterist after going to the wrong side of the road. In this process, the appellant received serious and multiple injuries including compound fracture. The injured was employee in the Haryana State Electricity Board. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 1129.70 at the relevant time. He was admitted to Civil Hospital, Karnal on 25.9.1984 and was discharged on 19.10.1984. The appellant also received head injury besides fracture of shaft of femur of the right leg. His right leg was shortened by 3/4" and his permanent disability was 32%. With these allegations the petitioner claimed a sum of rupees one lac as compensation. 3. The notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents who filed the reply and denied the allegations. The Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Sh. Rakesh Kumar driver of truck No. HYC 4442 of 25.9.1984 ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP 3. The Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Sh. Rakesh Kumar driver of truck No. HYC 4442 of 25.9.1984 ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 did not possess any valid licence of driving of truck, if so, to what effect ? OPR 4. Relief. 4. The parties are given opportunities to lead the evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Issue No. 2 was partly decided in favour of the appellant and a sum of Rs. 32,000/- was awarded by way of just compensation. Issue No. 3 was decided against the respondents and finally the claim petition was partly allowed as stated above. 5. Being not satisfied with the award, the present appeal has been filed by the injured. 6. I have heard Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Gopal Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. 7. Before me, only the finding on issue No. 2 have been challenged and I shall confine my discussion on this issue only. 8. Before, I deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate for me to reproduce the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 2, which are as under :- "PW1 Dr. K.L. Sachdeva stated that Subhash Chander petitioner was admitted in Civil Hospital, Karnal on 25.9.1984 and at the time of admission, he was semi-conscious and had multiple injuries i.e. head injury, fracture of shaft of femur of the right leg. He further stated that he was operated upon on the same day and a rod was put in his right femur and plaster was applied. He, however, stated that the rod was put on 19.10.1984 and he was discharged on 28.10.1984. He further examined the petitioner in the Court and found that his right leg was shortened by 3/4" and he had restricted movement of his right knee joint. He also stated that permanent disability of his right leg was 32%. He, however, stated that the rod was put on 19.10.1984 and he was discharged on 28.10.1984. He further examined the petitioner in the Court and found that his right leg was shortened by 3/4" and he had restricted movement of his right knee joint. He also stated that permanent disability of his right leg was 32%. Therefore, from the evidence it is clear that the petitioner remained in the hospital for more than a month and his right leg was shortened by 3/4". He suffered permanent disability of his right leg up to 32%. PW6 Subhash Chander stated that he became unconscious after the accident and received multiple fracture on his right leg. He next stated that his rib was fractured and he had also received head injury. He further stated that 2 operations were performed upon him and pin traction was done in his right leg. He also stated that he remained on leave for one month. He further stated that prior to the accident he used to go on cycle to the office but afterwards he had to go in the rickshaw and spent Rs. 10/- per day. He further stated that he had spent Rs. 2,000/- for better diet. He next stated that there was limping in his right leg. In cross-examination, he stated that Chief Medical Officer had approved medical bills amounting to Rs. 1684/- although he had claimed Rs. 2000/-. Therefore, he is not entitled to any amount on account of medicines because he will get re-imbursement from his department. Although he was not produced any bill for spending Rs. 2000/- on better died yet he is entitled to this amount because he had remained in the hospital for more than a month. It has been stated in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Gian Parkash Bhargave II, (1985) A.C.C. 230, that the production of the bills or vouchers or statement of accounts is not necessary to grant reasonable medical expenses to the petitioner. The petitioner has also suffered plan and agony because he remained admitted in the hospital for about one month and pin-traction was applied to his leg. Therefore, he is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering. His right leg has been shortened by 3/4" and there is a permanent disability to the extent of 32% so he is entitled to Rs. Therefore, he is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering. His right leg has been shortened by 3/4" and there is a permanent disability to the extent of 32% so he is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for the damage suffered by him. He is also awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for loss of his future prospects after retirement as he will not be able to do private job properly and similarly, he will have to incur some expenses for coming and going to the office. Therefore, in all, I grant Rs. 32,000/- as compensation. Respondent No. 1 is driver while respondent No. 2 is the owner and it was insured with respondent No. 3 New India Insurance Company. Therefore, all the respondents are liable jointly and severally to pay this amount. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent". 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the proved facts are that the accident took place on 25.9.1984. The appellant remained admitted in the hospital up to 18.10.1984. There was a compound fracture. His right leg was shortened by 3/4". Apart from that there is 32% permanent disability. He was a young boy. The two operations have already been performed upon the appellant and keeping in view the damage caused to the person of the appellant the compensation of Rs. 32,000/- is on the lower side and it cannot be held just from any parameter. 10. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of the respondents that the compensation awarded is adequate because the accident took place in the year 1984 and the award was passed in the year 1985. The value of the rupee in 1985 was much more as compared to the present time. 11. I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be held just keeping in view the damage caused to the person of the appellant. 12. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the permanent disability; Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of future prospects after retirement and Rs. 10,000/- has been given for the pain and sufferings. The Tribunal has not realised that the disability is a permanent one and it will always hamper the activity of the appellant. 13. 12. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the permanent disability; Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of future prospects after retirement and Rs. 10,000/- has been given for the pain and sufferings. The Tribunal has not realised that the disability is a permanent one and it will always hamper the activity of the appellant. 13. In my opinion, the just compensation in this case should be Rs. 60,000/-. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is enhanced to Rs. 60,000/-. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. It is, expected from the Insurance Company that it will release the compensation within month from the receipt of the copy of the order. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.