Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 671 (PNJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagjit Singh

2001-07-10

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R. L. Anand, J. 1. By this judgment, I dispose of F. A. O. No.2086 of 1995 titled united India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Jagjit singh and Cross-objection No.41-CII of 2000, as the appeal and cross-objections have arisen from the same award dated 15.5.1995, passed by the court of Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, which awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000.00 by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by Jagjit Singh and it was also ordered by the Tribunal that the amount of compensation shall be paid to the injured jointly and severally by all the respondents in the trial court. The Tribunal also ordered that injured shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the awarded amount of Rs.1,40,000.00 from the date of the application till the realisation of the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are that jagjit Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.1 cross-objector) filed a claim petition under sec. 166 of the Motor vehicles Act against Manzoor Masih, Parkash Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.13,50,000.00 on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which according to him, took place on 23.2.1993 at about 5 p. m. on G. T. Road at a distance of 1 km. from Dhannowali railway Crossing towards Phagwara. It was averred by the claimant that on 23.2.93 at about 5 p. m. he along with Hari Singh was going on a scooter bearing registration no. PIQ 3093 from Jalandhar City towards their village Rurki. The scooter was allegedly being driven by Hari Singh while the claimant was sitting on the pillion seat. As per the averments of the claimant, when they reached at a place one kilometre from dhannowali Railway Crossing towards phagwara side, a truck bearing registration no. PB 08-D 5485, suddenly came from a service station and approached the G. T. Road negligently. The truck hit the scooter as a result of which the rear tyre of the truck passed over the left leg of the claimant and he received the multiple injuries. At the time of the accident the truck was being driven by Manzoor Masih, respondent No.1. The claimant was removed to civil Hospital by respondent No.1. He was admitted there as an indoor patient. At the time of the accident the truck was being driven by Manzoor Masih, respondent No.1. The claimant was removed to civil Hospital by respondent No.1. He was admitted there as an indoor patient. Thereafter, respondent No.1 ran away with the truck, as the condition of the claimant was serious so he was referred to Christian medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, where the left leg of the claimant was amputated from above the left knee. The matter was reported to the police by the claimant and on his statement a case under sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal code was registered against respondent no.1. It is further alleged by the claimant that at the time of the accident he was a young boy of 22 years and was performing the duties of a granthi in gurdwara of village Rurki and his monthly income was rs.3,000. As the left leg of the claimant was amputated, he is unable to do his work properly. He remained admitted for about 30 days in the hospital and spent a sum of rs.50,000 on his treatment which is still continuing. The accident had taken place on account of the negligence of respondent no.1. The truck was owned by respondent no.2 Parkash Ram, and it was insured with the appellant insurance company. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents who appeared and contested the case before the trial court. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the stand taken by them was that the accident had not taken place on account of negligence of respondent No.1, rather, it took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the scooter. These respondents, however, admitted that the truck was insured with respondent No.3. As per the version of these respondents, the respondent No.1 was driving the truck on the G. T. Road at a very slow speed. Jagjit Singh and Hari singh were going on the scooter at a very fast speed from Jalandhar side and when they saw the truck coming from service station, Hari Singh lost control of the scooter and hit it against the rear tyre of the truck as the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of Hari Singh, the driver of the scooter, therefore, the claim petition should be dismissed. 4. 4. Respondent No.3, insurance company also filed separate written statement and denied the allegations. It was, however, pleaded by the insurance company that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and he was also not carrying the route permit and fitness certificate in respect of the said truck. 5. The claimant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the respondents in which he reiterated his allegations made in the claim petition by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the claimant suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 23.2.1993 in the area of Dhannowali on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. PB-08 d 5485 by respondent No.1? OPP (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If so, how much and from which of the respondents? OPP (3) Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and other required documents in respect of his truck at the time of the alleged accident? if so, its effect? OPR-3 (4) Relief. 6. To prove his case the claimant appeared as AW 1. He examined Hari Singh as AW 2, Dr. J. S. Bath as AW 3, Dr. A. S. Saini as AW 4 and Samuel Mall, Accounts clerk as AW 5. He also produced on record the copy of the F. I. R. Exh. A-l, bed head ticket, Exh. A-2, disability certificate exh. A-3, bills Exhs. A-4 and A-5 and the copy of the medico-legal report Exh. A-6. On the contrary, Parkash Ram, owner of the truck appeared as RW 1 and driver manzoor Masih as RW 2. The respondents also produced copy of the registration certificate Exh. R-1, copy of the fitness certificate Exh. R-2, copy of the route permit Exh. R-3 and the copy of the insurance policy, Exh. R-4. No evidence was led on behalf of the insurance company. The learned trial court decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. The issue no.2 was partly decided in favour of the claimant and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000 by way of compensation. Issue No.3 was decided against the insurance company. R-4. No evidence was led on behalf of the insurance company. The learned trial court decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. The issue no.2 was partly decided in favour of the claimant and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000 by way of compensation. Issue No.3 was decided against the insurance company. Resultantly, the claim petition was partly allowed declaring that the claimant-injured is entitled to Rs.1,40,000 by way of compensation besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment. The award was given on 15.5.1995. Not satisfied with the award, the insurance company and the claimant have filed the appeal and the cross-objections respectively. 7. I have heard Mr. Munishwar Puri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. H. S. Gill, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the cross-objector-respondent No.1 and Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 8. The learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments only on issue Nos.2 and 3, therefore, I confine my discussion on these issues after affirming the finding on issue No.1. 9. Attacking the award and the cross-objection of his rival, the first submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Munishwar Puri was that the cross-objections filed by the claimant Jagjit Singh are hopelessly time-barred and, therefore, these cannot be looked into nor these can be acted upon. 10. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 Mr. Gill, has invited my attention to a judgment reported as State of Haryana V/s. Khalsa High School, Ambala City, (19852) 88 PLR 335, in which it was held that while computing limitation for the purpose of entertaining the cross-objections, limitation starts only after the notice of actual hearing is served. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, wants to distinguish this authority by stating that this judgment will apply when the respondent is ex pane. I am not in a position to subscribe to the argument of Mr. Puri. In the present case, it has been clearly stated in para 2 of the cross-objections that the main appeal had not been listed for regular hearing and, therefore, the cross-objection had been filed within limitation. I am not in a position to subscribe to the argument of Mr. Puri. In the present case, it has been clearly stated in para 2 of the cross-objections that the main appeal had not been listed for regular hearing and, therefore, the cross-objection had been filed within limitation. The cross-objections were received in the Registry on 13.7.2000. On that day, the appeal had not been listed for regular hearing. In these circumstances, I repel the first argument of mr. Puri and hold that the cross-objections are within limitation. 11. It was then submitted on behalf of the appellant that the insurance company had not been given the proper time by the tribunal to prove that Manzoor Masih had no valid driving licence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant draws my attention to the application dated 5.5.1995 moved by respondent no.3, i. e. , the appellant in which it was alleged that respondent No.1 though made a mention in his statement that he was having a valid driving licence which was placed on the court file yet respondent No.1 has not filed any photocopy of the driving licence nor disclosed the serial number or place of issuing authority in order to enable the insurance company to make proper verification. There is no merit in this contention. The onus of this issue was upon the insurance company. In these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the insurance company appellant to produce such evidence from which it can be proved that the driver of the scooter had no valid driving licence. The record of the trial court, however, shows that on 30.3.95, respondent Nos.1 and 2, i. e. , driver and the owner filed an application and prayed to the court that the clerk of the court of mr. Ranjit Jain, Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jalandhar, along with criminal file, state V/s. Manzoor Masih, F. I. R. No.24 dated 23.2.1993 under sections 279/3377 338 may be summoned. It clearly indicates that the driving licence of Manzoor Masih must be attached on the criminal appeal. The particulars of the criminal file were already in the knowledge of the insurance company. The insurance company had not taken any steps to bother about the examination of any witness to prove the driving licence of respondent No.1. It clearly indicates that the driving licence of Manzoor Masih must be attached on the criminal appeal. The particulars of the criminal file were already in the knowledge of the insurance company. The insurance company had not taken any steps to bother about the examination of any witness to prove the driving licence of respondent No.1. In view of the categorical stand of respondent No.1 that he was having a valid driving licence, it is difficult for me to accept the contention of the insurance company that respondent no.1 Manzoor Masih had no valid driving licence. In the reply dated 15.5.1995, it is categorically stated by Manzoor Masih that the driving licence is on the court file pending in the court of Mr. Ranjit Jain, judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar and that the insurance company had moved the application just to prolong the proceedings. Since respondent No.3 did not lead any evidence, therefore, I affirm the finding of the trial court on issue No.3. 12. It was then submitted on behalf of mr. Munishwar Puri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company appellant that the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 13. On the contrary, the counsel for the cross-objector (injured) submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in error in awarding rs.50,000 only under the head permanent disability. Before I discuss, the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be proper for me to incorporate para Nos.13 to 17 of the impugned award which are as under: " (13) In view of my finding on issue no.1, the claimant is entitled to get the compensation from the respondent for the injuries received by him in the accident in question. Jagjit Singh, claimant, while in the witness-box has deposed that after the accident, he was removed to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar from where he was referred to Christian Medical college and Hospital, Ludhiana. The claimant has placed on record copy of his medical legal examination report, exh. A-6. The doctor had found a fracture of pelvis in his case besides other injuries. AW 3 Dr. J. S. Bath, Surgical specialist, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, also deposed that the claimant had also suffered a vesicular injury which was major in nature to his left lower limb. Dr. A-6. The doctor had found a fracture of pelvis in his case besides other injuries. AW 3 Dr. J. S. Bath, Surgical specialist, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, also deposed that the claimant had also suffered a vesicular injury which was major in nature to his left lower limb. Dr. A. S. Saini, Orthopaedic Surgeon, of civil Hospital, Jalandhar had examined the claimant on 31.3.1994 after his left leg had been amputated through thigh with stump of 10 cm. below the greater trochanter left. Through his certificate exh. AW 3, Dr. A. S. Saini had determined permanent disability of the claimant to the extent of 70 per cent. According to the claimant, before the accident, he was working as granthi at gurdwara of Rurki village and he used to earn Rs.3,000 to Rs.3,500 per month. He went on to say that because of the injuries suffered by him and amputation of his left leg he is unable to do any work. Although, the claimant has suffered serious injuries including fracture of left pelvis and amputation of his left leg, yet to my mind it has not materially affected his work as a granthi. All right the claimant must have suffered in enjoying his married life because of these injuries, but the claimant was married before the accident and had children. Therefore, the prospects of future life keeping in view the profession which the claimant had undertaken is also not materially effected. (14) The claimant stated that he had to spend Rs.50,000 to Rs.55,000 on his treatment. AW 5 Samuel Mall, Accounts clerk proved that the claimant had paid a sum of Rs.21,000 and another sum of rs.4,152 to the hospital authorities towards his treatment charges vide bills exhs. A-4 and A-5 respectively. Besides that, the claimant must have spent some amount on conveyance for going and coming back to the hospital. A considerable amount must have been spent by the claimant on special diet. At least for the period for which the claimant remained admitted in the hospital, he lost the earnings which he would have otherwise earned had he not met with the accident. Therefore, in my view a sum of Rs.50,000 shall be adequate compensation under this head. (15) According to Dr. A. S. Saini, AW 4 permanent disability in case of the claimant was to the extent of 70 per cent. Therefore, in my view a sum of Rs.50,000 shall be adequate compensation under this head. (15) According to Dr. A. S. Saini, AW 4 permanent disability in case of the claimant was to the extent of 70 per cent. His left leg had been amputated as proved by the medical evidence. Learned counsel for the claimant cited before me Mangal Kishore Kaul V/s. Union of india, 1989 ACJ 786 (Pandh ). In the said case, there was shortening of leg by 2" and the Hon ble High Court awarded a compensation of Rs.2,10,000. The claimant has also relied upon Dr. M. L. Sharma V/s. State ofharyana, 1992 ACJ 443 (Pandh ). On the other hand, Mr. M. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company relied upon Bachan Singh V/s. Punjab Roadways Depot, 1994 ACJ 1250 (Pandh), in which case, the Hon ble High Court had awarded a sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation for the loss of limb, pain, suffering and injuries where permanent disability was to the tune of 55 per cent. In another case, Harnam Singh V/s. Surinder Singh, 1992 ACJ 290 (Pandh), compensation of Rs.78,000 was awarded in case of amputation of the right leg. I have carefully considered the contentions of the rival parties on the question of quantum of compensation and have also carefully gone through the authorities cited by both the parties. By now, it is well settled that broad principles are to be kept in mind while awarding compensation to the injured party so that he be awarded such sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been, if he had not sustained the injuries. Though, no award money can possibly compensate a man for such grievous injuries and above all in case of amputation of his leg, yet, for arriving at a fair compensation, all relevant circumstance: like image, future loss, permanent disability and loss of future enjoyment, etc. , are to be taken into account. In Mangal Kishore Kauls case (supra), the claimant was a student of M. Sc. (Biophysics) and remained hospitalized for three months. His qualifications were the main consideration with the Hon ble High Court for arriving at the amount of compensation awarded to him. , are to be taken into account. In Mangal Kishore Kauls case (supra), the claimant was a student of M. Sc. (Biophysics) and remained hospitalized for three months. His qualifications were the main consideration with the Hon ble High Court for arriving at the amount of compensation awarded to him. In case of Bachan Singh (supra)it is not clear from the facts of the case as to what was the age of the claimant and what were his qualifications. Therefore, the case in hand is to be viewed as per the facts involved in the present case. The claimant has not been able to prove by any cogent and reliable evidence that he was earning Rs.3,000 per month. But, keeping in view the permanent disability, loss of pain and suffering undergone by the claimant, I am of the view that another sum of Rs.70,000 shall be the most suitable and reasonable compensation for permanent disability suffered by the claimant and for the loss of future income. (16) The claimant was operated upon for amputation of his left leg and the chances of future treatment for any complication which may arise in the case of the claimant can also not be overruled. Therefore, I am of the view that ends of justice shall be met if the claimant is awarded another sum of Rs.20,000 for such exigencies. Thus, in all, claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,40,000 by way of compensation. (17) The next vital question which shall arise in the present case is as to which of the respondents shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. Admittedly, Manzoor Masih, resppndent No.1, was the driver of the offending vehicle which was owned by respondent No.2. Said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Mr. M. M. Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the insurance company, vehemently contended that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, Exh. R-4, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. Said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Mr. M. M. Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the insurance company, vehemently contended that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, Exh. R-4, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. Of course, the plea was taken by respondent No.3 in its written reply that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and an issue in this respect was struck, yet, the insurance company did not produce any evidence to prove that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 while appearing in the witness-box as RW 2 deposed categorically that he was issued a driving licence to drive heavy vehicle in the year 1984. It was twice got renewed by him. In cross-examination he stated that the said driving licence was on the file of the criminal case registered against him regarding this accident. He was not in possession of any receipt to show that the driving licence was lying in the court. At the face of this stand of respondent no.1, it was expected from the insurance company to get summoned the file of the criminal case and if the driving licence of respondent No.1 was not there the contention of the insurance company could be sustained. Respondent No.3 did not make any effort to summon the file of the criminal case registered against him in respect of the present accident, rather it had moved an application calling upon respondent No.1 to produce his driving licence. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence. Therefore, in my view, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant as assessed by this Tribunal. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant. " 14. In my opinion, the contention of mr. Puri, is devoid of any merit, further, I am of the opinion that there is a scope of enhancement of compensation. Let us see what is the damage done to the injured. After the accident, the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where he was medically examined as per Exh. A-6 AW 3 Dr. Puri, is devoid of any merit, further, I am of the opinion that there is a scope of enhancement of compensation. Let us see what is the damage done to the injured. After the accident, the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where he was medically examined as per Exh. A-6 AW 3 Dr. J. S. Bath, Surgical Specialist, Civil hospital, Jalandhar found a fracture of pelvis in this case besides other injuries. It was- also deposed by this doctor that jagjit Singh suffered a vesicular injury which was major in nature to his left lower limb. Dr. A. S. Saini, Orthopaedic Surgeon of Civil Hospital, Jalandhar deposed that the left leg of the injured was amputated through left thigh with stump of 10 cm. below greater trochanter left and the disability of the injured has been declared permanent to the extent of 70 per cent. The tribunal only awarded Rs.70,000 by way of compensation. The Tribunal in para 13 admits by relying upon the statement of the claimant that on account of the amputation of his left leg he was unable to enjoy his married life and also after the accident he had been rendered unable to dp any work. Also, it has been admitted by the tribunal that the injured suffered serious injuries including fracture of left pelvis and amputation of his left leg. Yet the Tribunal fell in error by saying that the work of the injured has not been materially affected as a granthi. It is a case of loss of very vital limb. The disability is of such a nature that even the personality of a person has decreased considerably. I have also to take notice that injured was married. He had children and the future of his life has been materially affected as he has become a handicap person for all times to come. Even he has to walk for a yard he requires the assistance either of a lathi or of a person. He cannot walk freely like an ordinary person. 15. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to enhance the compensation under the head of permanent disability from rs.70,000.00 to Rs.1,30,000.00. 16. With regard to the other claims, I am not in a position to make any enhancement. Thus, in my opinion, the claimant ought to have been awarded Rs.2,00,000.00 as compensation instead of Rs.1,40,000.00. 17. 15. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to enhance the compensation under the head of permanent disability from rs.70,000.00 to Rs.1,30,000.00. 16. With regard to the other claims, I am not in a position to make any enhancement. Thus, in my opinion, the claimant ought to have been awarded Rs.2,00,000.00 as compensation instead of Rs.1,40,000.00. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant mr. Puri has relied upon several authorities and I will like to make a reference of those one by one. The first judgment is K. Narayanaswamy V/s. Mukunda, 1999 ACJ 1599 (SC), of the Hon ble Apex Court in which the Hon ble Apex Court enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000.00 in a case of injured aged 30 years employed as a cleaner. It was a case of amputation of hand and fracture of ribs. The cited judgment cannot be relied upon for the simple reasons; firstly, I am handicap of the facts of this case; secondly this SLP was filed in the Supreme Court in the year 1995.1 am not in a position to know when the accident in the cited case took place. Every case has to be viewed on its own facts and circumstances. Here is a case where a young boy has lost his left leg. He has been crippled. He is not in a position to perform his duties. 18. The counsel then relied upon United india Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Swaran Singh, 1989 ACJ 203 (Pandh ). The judgment again cannot be made the basis for the simple reason that the accident took place in 1993. The value of the money had considerably decreased with the passage of time. Reliance was also placed on Rajiv Kumar V/s. P. R. T. C. , Patiala, 1994 ACJ 1124 (Pandh ). In this cited case the accident had taken place on 26.2.1983, 10 years earlier to the accident which had taken place in our case. The High Court awarded Rs.75,000.00 by way of compensation. If this criteria is made a yardstick for our purposes, then the compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 which I have awarded through this judgment cannot be said to be on the higher side. Counsel Mr. Puri also relied upon Narinderpal singh V/s. Punjab State, 1989 ACJ 708 (Pandh ). Again this was a case of the year 1984. If this criteria is made a yardstick for our purposes, then the compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 which I have awarded through this judgment cannot be said to be on the higher side. Counsel Mr. Puri also relied upon Narinderpal singh V/s. Punjab State, 1989 ACJ 708 (Pandh ). Again this was a case of the year 1984. My attention was invited to Bachan singh V/s. Punjab Roadways Depot, 1994 acj 1250 (Pandh ). In this cited case the accident took place in the year 1984. The disability was 55 per cent. In our case the accident is of 1993 and the disability is 70 per cent. Yet reliance was placed on Kailash Chand Jain V/s. Gurdip Singh, 1999 acj 468 (Pandh ). It was a case of 1985. The disability was 85 per cent, still the court awarded Rs.1,20,000 by taking notice of the fact that the injured would procure an artificial limb for his survival. If this judgment is made as a yardstick then the compensation of Rs.2,00,000 in the present case under all heads cannot be said to be on the higher side. Rather in my opinion, it would be a just compensation. 19. The counsel for the injured Mr. Gill, relied upon a judgment of Rajasthan High court in Sitaram V/s. National Insurance co. Ltd. , 1992 ACJ 194 (Rajasthan) and submitted that the cited case was a case of amputation of left foot and the High Court awarded Rs.2,31,000.00 by way of compensation and the accident was of the year 1984. On this analogy Mr. Gill made a prayer that his client should be awarded rs.4,00,000.00 minimum. Reliance was also placed on Raj Kumar V/s. Swaran Singh, 2000 ACJ 174 (Pandh), where left leg of the injured was amputated above knee and the injured suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85 per cent and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.4,00,000.00 from Rs.70,000.00 by the High Court. 20. Every case has to depend on its own facts and circumstances as I have stated above. Two cases can hardly meet with each other and that is the reason the legislature has used the words just compensation in sec. 168 of the Motor vehicles Act. 21. 20. Every case has to depend on its own facts and circumstances as I have stated above. Two cases can hardly meet with each other and that is the reason the legislature has used the words just compensation in sec. 168 of the Motor vehicles Act. 21. I have considered all the pros and cons of this case and hold that the injured should get a compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment and I order accordingly. Consequently, the finding on issue No.2 stands modified. 22. The net result is that United India insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Jagjit Singh, F. A. O. No.2086 of 1995 is hereby dismissed while Cross-objection No.41-CII of 2000, filed by Jagjit Singh injured-claimant are allowed in part and the compensation is awarded to the injured as indicated above. The insurance company shall make the residue payment within one month from today. Appeal dismissed; cross-objection allowed.