Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 247 (PNJ)

Arun Alok @ Arun Kumar v. Lal Singh

2003-02-10

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
ORDER H.S. Bedi, J. - On 12.8.1999 at about 12.00 noon, an accident took place involving a bus belonging to the Haryana Roadways bearing registration No. HR-47-1793 driven by Lal Singh, respondent No. 1, in which the claimant, who at that time was studying in 10+2, was seriously injured. The claimant was first shifted to the General Hospital, Narnaul and then to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur and remained hospitalised therein from 12.8.1999 to 7.9.1999. He was re-admitted in the said hospital and was operated upon on 9.10.1999, 9.11.1999, 6.12.1999, 4.1.2000, 27.1.2000 and 23.3.2000. On a consideration of the evidence produced before it, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by Lal Singh aforesaid. It also held that the driver was holding a valid driving licence. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of pain and suffering as he had been operated upon several times and had remained hospitalised for more than a month, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards permanent disability and a sum of Rs. 19,000/- towards conveyance charges, making a total of Rs. 1,39,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation. 2. Mr. Sailendar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, has argued that a bare reading of the evidence and the award of the Tribunal would indicate that the claimant had sustained very serious injuries and normal life had been completely disrupted as he had to depend upon others for even his day to day chores, which had marred his future as he had been rendered unfit for employment. 3. Mr. Dahiya, the learned counsel appearing for the State, has stoutly controverted the claim and urged that the claimant had been suitably compensated and no further enhancement was called for. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. It would be clear from the evidence that the claimant remained hospitalised for almost one month immediately after the accident and had undergone several operations thereafter. It has come in the evidence of PW-7, Dr. Shivam Priyadarsahi, Asstt. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. It would be clear from the evidence that the claimant remained hospitalised for almost one month immediately after the accident and had undergone several operations thereafter. It has come in the evidence of PW-7, Dr. Shivam Priyadarsahi, Asstt. Professor Department of Urology, SMS Hospital, Jaipur, that Arun Alok had been admitted to the hospital with multiple fractures of the pelvis with retention urine and haematuria and a fracture of the right iliac bone, right hip, inferior pubic rami right side and superior and inferior rami left side and that had sustained a rupture of the bladder with posterior urethral rupture and massive retroperitoneal haematoma, all leading to a permanent disability of 40% and making it difficult for him to undergo any physical exertion. 6. It is, therefore, obvious that the sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses and the sum of Rs. 80,000/- for permanent disability is absolutely unrealistic and inadequate. It has come in the evidence that at the time of accident, the victim was a student of 10+2. The length of his hospitalisation and the very nature of his injuries indicate that the permanent disability of 40% has cut into his future prospects for all time to come and that a young man has been rendered unfit for even the smallest physical exertion. I, therefore, hold that the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- on account of medical expenses and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in all towards permanent disability bringing the total amount of compensation to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The petitioner would also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim till the realisation. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. Appeal allowed.