Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 287 (PNJ)

Harbhajan Singh v. Sukhdev Singh

2003-02-14

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. - These appeals arise out of an accident which happened on 9.4.1990 involving truck No. HRC-1635, being driven by Sukhdev Singh and owned by Ram Lal (Respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively), in which Harbhjan Singh, appellant, aged 44 years, who was a Head Constable in the Punjab Police, and was on his motor-cycle No. PJN-4945 was seriously injured. As a consequence of the injuries suffered by him, he filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala. The claim petition was contested by the respondents on which the following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the claimant received injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 9.4.90 near village Seel due to rash and negligent act of driving of respondent No. 1 ? OPA. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom ? OPA. 3. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPA. 4. Relief." 2. Under issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver (Respondent No. 2). Under issue No. 3, it was held that though Sukhdev Singh the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence on 9.4.1990 but the Insurance Company nevertheless could not escape its liability. With regard to issue No. 2, i.e., quantum of compensation, the Tribunal opined that as the claimant had suffered 68.1% permanent disability and had also incurred expenses on his treatment and his earning capacity had been reduced, he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation in all, which included Rs. 16,000/- as medical expenses. The Court directed that the respondents would be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. 3. Two appeals have been filed against the award of the Tribunal, one by Harbhajan Singh and the other by the Insurance Company. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment. 4. It has been argued by Mr. Ramesh Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant, that the compensation of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, which included a sum of Rs. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment. 4. It has been argued by Mr. Ramesh Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant, that the compensation of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, which included a sum of Rs. 16,000/- as medical expenses was inadequate considering the fact that the appellant had suffered permanent disability of 68% and as his earning capacity had been reduced by 60%, his future prospects for promotion etc. had been completely shut out as he was still a Head Constable. 5. Mr. D.P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, has, however, argued that as the Tribunal had rightly taken into account the loss suffered by the claimant, nothing more was due on that account. He has also urged that as the driving licence of the offending truck driver was found to be a fake one, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. It is the admitted petition that Harbhajan Singh was a Head Constable in the Punjab Police and was 44 years of age at the time of the accident. It has also come in the evidence that he had received multiple injuries, which included extensive crush injuries of the right leg and that there was a communicated fracture of the right patella, besides a fracture of the femoral condyles of the right femer. He was operated on 28.7.1990, 11.10.1990, 21.5.1990 and 3.8.1991 and thereafter as well. It is also clear from the evidence that he had suffered 68.1% disability and his earning capacity had been reduced by 60%. It is also clear from the record that the right leg of the appellant had been shortened by 4 to 5". 8. Mr. Sharma categorically stated at the Bar that the claimant still continued to be a Head Constable though his counterparts had become Inspectors by now. In any case, the promotion(s) due to the appellant have been shut out for all time to come on account of his injuries. 9. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sum of Rs. 45000/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by the claimant is wholly inadequate and that the claimant should be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in all as compensation. 10. 9. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sum of Rs. 45000/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by the claimant is wholly inadequate and that the claimant should be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in all as compensation. 10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also attempted to argue that the driver of the truck was not negligent while driving the truck. I find that this argument has no merit. The finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence is, thus, confirmed. The Tribunal has found that the licence issued to driver Sukhdev Singh was a fake one. This fact has not been controverted by the claimants counsel. This finding is accordingly affirmed. 11. In view of above, FAO No. 2470 of 1994 is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in all along with interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. The Insurance Company shall make the payment of the compensation at the first instance. 12. In the circumstances, FAO No. 743 of 1993 is dismissed with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner and driver of the Truck as has been held by Honble Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company v. Kamla, (2001-1) 127 PLR 830. Appeal allowed.