Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 777 (PNJ)

Inder Sain Chawla v. Janak Ram Aka Kuldeep Kumar

2005-07-23

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2005
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Injured-claimant Dr. Inder Sain Chawla has filed this appeal to challenge the award dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short the Tribunal) whereby he has been awarded Rs. 2,50,788/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that appellant, Dr. Inder Sain Chawla was travelling in car bearing registration No.PB-11-B-0057 along with one Bhupinder Singh at about 3.00 P.M. on 24.5.1995 when it was hit by a truck bearing registration No. PCl-4881. The appellant suffered injuries and remained admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and was discharged therefrom on 29.5.1995. Thereafter he suffered heart attack and was readmitted in the said Hospital on 1.6.1995 and remained there up to 8.6.1995. He suffered 50% permanent disability in his left arm. He filed claim petition and claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- for his injury. According to the claimant-appellant that he was a medical practitioner by profession and was working a journalist for the daily Ajit Milap, Vir Par-tap etc. According to him, from the medical profession he was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 3,000/- per month from the newspapers for working as a journalist. Dr. Inder Sain Chawla claimed that he had hired an attendant to look after him at a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- and had also to engage a car and a driver at the rate of Rs. 15007-per month. Another claim made by him is for a sum of Rs.2,36,000/- allegedly spent by him for another operation for neurology. A sum of Rs. 16,000/- was allegedly spent on purchasing a machine to be fixed on his body. In this way, the claimant had made a claim for a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with 18% per annum as interest on the total amount of compensation. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence adduced on record, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of permanent disability, conveyance and other allied matters, shock and pain etc., in addition to the actual expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,788/- incurred by the appellant on the purchase of medicines etc. In this way, total compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,788/- was held to be paid to the appellant and liability was fixed on respondent Nos. 50,788/- incurred by the appellant on the purchase of medicines etc. In this way, total compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,788/- was held to be paid to the appellant and liability was fixed on respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to make the payment of compensation, subject to the indemnity clause of the Insurance Policy. The Tribunal further ordered that if the amount of compensation was, not paid within two months from the date of the award, then the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Now Dr. Inder Sain Chawla claimant has filed this appeal wherein challenge has been made to the judgment of the Tribunal. 3. It has been contended by Mr. Arun Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant, that the Tribunal erred in not granting any compensation for the loss of income which the appellant was earning from the medical profession as well as by working as a Journalist with the dailies Ajit, Milap, Vir Partap etc. Further it has been contended that the Tribunal also erred by granting conditional interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation, whereas the appellant is entitled to the grant of 18% interest without any condition with effect from the date of accident. 4. The contentions raised by Mr. Arun Jindal have vehemently been controverted by Mr. Inderjit Sharma. learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company. 5. So far as the contention raised by Mr. Arun Jindal for the grant of compensation for the loss of professional income as a medical practitioner and as a journalist is concerned, I do not find any merit therein. Except for the solitary statement of the appellant, there is no cogent evidence on the file to show that he was a Journalist with the dailies like Ajit, Milap and Vir Partap etc. There is also no evidence with regard to his medical profession. No certificate of registration as Medical Practitioner has been adduced on record. No corroborative evidence to the statement of the appellant is available on the file. In the absence of any cogent evidence the appellant cannot be held entitled to the grant of any compensation on these counts. 6. There is also no evidence with regard to his medical profession. No certificate of registration as Medical Practitioner has been adduced on record. No corroborative evidence to the statement of the appellant is available on the file. In the absence of any cogent evidence the appellant cannot be held entitled to the grant of any compensation on these counts. 6. Similarly, the appellant has not adduced any evidence with regard to the employment of an attendant at a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- as well as engagement of a car and driver at the rate of Rs.1,500/- except for the self-serving statement of the appellant. In the absence of any such evidence, the appellant cannot be held entitled for the grant of salary for the attendant as well as any amount for the engagement of a car and a driver at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per- month. 7. The Tribunal has awarded a total lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of conveyance and other allied matters, shock, pain and 50% permanent disability of the left arm suffered by the appellant, besides the actual expenses incurred by him for the purchase of medicines etc. 1 am of the considered opinion, the grant of a lump sum compensation on account of 50% permanent disability of the left arm as well as conveyance, shock and pain and other allied matters is quite reasonable. The claim of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the appellant is not substantiated by leading any cogent evidence. 1 concur with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal for the grant of lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of 50% per cent disability of the left arm and other allied matters. Besides this, the appellant has been held entitled to the actual expenses of Rs.50,788/- incurred by him on the purchase of medicines etc. 8. However, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in granting conditional interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the amount of compensation. The accrual of interest on the amount of compensation in the eventuality of its non-payment for two months from the date of the award seems to be quite illogic. The accrual of interest on the amount of compensation in the eventuality of its non-payment for two months from the date of the award seems to be quite illogic. 1 am of the view that the interest on the total amount of compensation ought to have been granted from the date of claim petition and not after two months of the date of the award of the Tribunal in the eventuality of its non-payment by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Resultantly, I partly allow the appeal by modifying the award dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to the grant of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the total amount of compensation, which shall accrue to the appellant from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.