Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 745 (PNJ)

Devinder Singh v. R. S. Bhatia

2002-08-02

VIRENDER SINGH

body2002
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Devinder Singh appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, patiala (for short, the Tribunal) vide its award dated 18.7.1991 for the injuries suffered by him in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of car No. PJB 289 while the appellant was going on his motor cycle No. RCI 5555. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 2.10.1988 at about 5.45 p. m. , the appellant was going on his motor cycle no. RCI 5555 on Sirhind Road and a maruti car No.114 was proceeding ahead of the motor cycle. When the claimant reached near the workshop of Badhashah toka, a car No. PJB 289, coming from the opposite side being driven by the respondent No.1, rashly and negligently, struck against the Maruti car and the motor cycle, as a result of which the appellant fell down and received multiple injuries. He was removed to Rajendra Hospital where he remained admitted from 2.10.1988 to 12.10.1988 and was operated upon. 3. In support of his case, the appellant himself stepped into the witness-box as aw 2 and deposed that he remained admitted in Rajendra Hospital, Patiala from 2.10.1988 to 12.10.1988 and was operated upon on 8.10.1988. There was a fracture in his left thigh and right leg. A plate was inserted in his left leg. It was further deposed by him that he remained on crutches for about two years. The plate so inserted in the left leg had broken subsequently and he was to be operated upon once again on 31.1.1989. He deposed that he got the treatment from Sood Plastic Surgery Clinic, Patiala. The certificate in this regard was produced by the appellant before the tribunal as Exh. AW 2/2. The certificate issued by the doctor was also produced as aw 2/5. Certain documents regarding the accident were also produced before the tribunal. Besides this, AW 1 Dr. Gurdeep singh, Senior Lecturer, Orthopaedic Department, Rajendra Hospital, Patiala had also stepped into the witness-box in support of the case of appellant and deposed that the appellant had fracture of the shaft of the left femur for which fixation of the plate was done. He also deposed about the injury on the right leg which was diagnosed as fracture of the fibula. Dr. He also deposed about the injury on the right leg which was diagnosed as fracture of the fibula. Dr. Gurdeep singh further stated on oath that the plate which was inserted for fixing of the bone could break in some eventuality. A certificate Exh. A- l, which bears the signatures of one Dr. Baldev Singh, Professor, Orthopaedic Department, Rajendra Hospital, patiala and duly identified by Dr. Gurdeep singh was also produced on record which shows that the appellant had suffered paramount disability to the extent of 15 per cent. 4. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, assessed the compensation as under: (1) Pain, suffering, mental agony and shock rs.40,000 (2) Medical expenses rs.8,000 (3) Permanent disability rs.30,000 Total: rs.78,000 5. I have seen the record of the case and have also gone through the evidence adduced by the appellant in support of his case minutely. According to the certificate exh. A-l, which bears the signatures of one Dr. Baldev Singh, Professor, Orthopaedic Department, Rajendra Hospital, patiala and duly identified by Dr. Gurdeep singh, the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15 per cent. The learned Tribunal while deciding the quantum of compensation has not taken into consideration this aspect of the claim in spite of the fact that Exh. A-l shows that the appellant has suffered 15 per cent disability as certified by the doctors. 6. In view of the aforesaid position, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced. According to my assessment, the compensation to which appellant is entitled is as under: (1) Pain, suffering, mental agony and shock rs.52,000 (2) Medical expenses rs.8,000 (3) Permanent disability rs.40,000 Total: rs, 1,00,000 7. Consequently, this appeal is accepted. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. Appellant will be entitled to the enhanced amount rs.22,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the enhanced amount in the light of the latest authority of the Supreme Court in Devi dayal Kansal V/s. Raj Roop, 2002 ACJ 338 (SC ). The rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is also 12 per cent per annum. The rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is also 12 per cent per annum. The liability to pay the enhanced amount would be of respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Since liability of the owner is fully covered under the insurance policy, which is Exh. R- l, therefore, the insurance company (respondent No.3) would be liable to pay the enhanced amount. Appeal allowed.