Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 942 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar

2002-09-19

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2002
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. 24.12.1986, Vijay Kumar appellant was injured in accident, involving truck No. PER 1187, driven by respondent Teja Singh. He suffered serious injuries and was first removed to the B.B.M.B. Hospital, Nangal and remained admitted therein and was thereafter referred to the PGI, ChandigarrTon 22.4.1987. A claim petition was thereafter filed by Vijay Kumar along with an application for condonation of delay, pleading that he could not file the claim petition earlier on account of his physical incapacity. 2. On a reply filed by the respondents, the following issues were framed: 410 (1) Whether the accident in question in which Vijay Kumar sustained injuries was the result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PER 1187 by its driver Teja Singh, respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP (2) Whether the claim petition is barred by time? OPR (3) To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom? OPP (4) Relief. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar in its award dated 23.5.1988 held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Teja Singh. On issue No. 2, it was noted that the accident had taken place on 24.12.1986, but as the petition had been filed on 9.11.1987, the same was time-barred. The Tribunal (on the question of compensation), observed that the claimant would be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 47,700 which included Rs. 25,000 as general damages along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum under various heads, but in view of the findings on issue No. 2, it was held that no amount was in fact payable. 4. The present appeal has been filed by Vijay Kumar alone. 5. At the very outset, Mr. R.M. Suri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant tyas placed reliance on a judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Dhannalal V/s. D.P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 ACJ 1013 (SC),to contend that as the appeal had been pending in this court, the question of limitation could no longer be an impediment to deny the appellants claim. The fact that the petition would no longer be time-barred in the light of the aforesaid judgment, has not been denied by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The finding on issue No. 2 is accordingly reversed. 6. The fact that the petition would no longer be time-barred in the light of the aforesaid judgment, has not been denied by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The finding on issue No. 2 is accordingly reversed. 6. I have also gone through the evidence on record with regard to the quantum of compensation determined under issue No. 3. It appears from the documents in evidence that appellant was still undergoing treatment for the injuries that he had suffered. Two certificates given by Dr. A.K.Mandal, Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, PGI, Chandigarh have been produced by filing a civil misc. application, which too indicate that appellant would have to undergo follow-up treatment for a long time. It is also clear from the outpatient ticket that appellant has suffered fracture in both hips. Mr. Suri has also produced before me today in court the outpatient ticket of the appellant which shows that he had been visiting PGI, Chandigarh for follow-up treatment right up to the year 1999 and that he had difficulty in passing urine which required regular and periodical follow-up treatment from PGI. It is also clear from the medical evidence that the appellant had suffered serious fractures on both his hip bones and a rupture of the urethra. I am thus of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 25,000 given as general damages is not adequate. This amount is enhanced by Rs. 50,000 making a total amount of Rs. 75,000. The compensation under other heads is maintained as it is. It is, however, directed that the interest payable to the appellant would be at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, the appeal is allowed in the above terms.