Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2729 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh v. Baldev Raj

2006-07-12

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2006
JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Mohunta, J. The appellant Nirmal Singh has filed the present appeal against the judgment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar dated 23.2.1987 by which a compensation of Rs. 10,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum has been awarded to the claimant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 3.6.1986 at about 11 a.m. the claimant-appellant was returning back to his house on his bicycle when the tyre of his cycle got deflated near S.A.S. Nagar, Phase II, Mohali. Appellant got down from his cycle and got the tyre inflated from a cycle repair shop and when he tried to ride his cycle, at that time, a Tempo bearing registration No. PBW 1073 came from behind, being driven by Baldev Raj and dashed against the appellant. The appellant was dragged along with his cycle to a distance of 7-8 paces and he suffered multiple injuries on account of the accident. He was rushed to P.G.I. where he was treated. The owner of the offending vehicle was the Punjab State Electricity Board, respondent No. 2. 3. The appellant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 on account of the injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tempo No. PBW 1073 and held the respondents to be jointly and severally liable. No appeal has been filed by the respondents, hence, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place are upheld. 4. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the compensation of Rs. 10,000 as awarded by Claims Tribunal is highly inadequate as the appellant was working in the office of Punjab Architect, Chandigarh, and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,177 per month. It is contended that as a result of the accident the third, fourth and fifth ribs of the appellant were fractured. There was also a fracture of right neck of scapula bone and also a fracture of the pelvis. He has shortening of 1.5 cm on right lower limb and has suffered a disability of 10 per cent which is of permanent nature. 5. Dr. There was also a fracture of right neck of scapula bone and also a fracture of the pelvis. He has shortening of 1.5 cm on right lower limb and has suffered a disability of 10 per cent which is of permanent nature. 5. Dr. Harmit Singh, PW 4, who was a Senior Resident in the Department of Orthopaedics at P.G.I., Chandigarh, has deposed that Nirmal Singh was brought to the Emergency of P.G.I. on 3.6.1986 at 2.30 p.m. and on examination, the following injuries were found on his person: (1) Multiple abrasions over the right arm, both hands and face. (2) Fracture of third, fourth and fifth ribs with haemothorax and surgical emphysema. (3) Fracture of right neck of scapula bone. (4) Fracture of pelvis. 6. The doctor has further opined that the patient was in severe shock and was treated for his fractures. The patient was discharged on 9.6.1986. The doctor has categorically stated that the appellant cannot sit cross-legged and walk long distance. He also has restriction of shoulder movements and shortening of 1.5 cm on right lower limb and the 10 per cent disability suffered by him is of permanent nature. 7. A perusal of the aforementioned statement clearly shows that appellant had suffered multiple injuries and, therefore, the compensation of Rs. 10,000 as awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate. Not only the appellant was hospitalised in P.G.I. for approximately one week, but he had suffered fracture of his ribs, fracture of right neck of scapula bone, fracture of pelvis as well as shortening of right lower limb. He has been permanently disabled to the extent of 10 per cent. 8. Apart from the above, appellant has stated that he had remained bedridden for approximately 41/2 months and has incurred a lot of expenses on his treatment and medicines. The appellant has also considerably suffered on account of pain as a result of the injuries. 9. After taking into consideration the multiple injuries suffered by the appellant as well as the pain and suffering and the amount spent by him on his treatment, I award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant. The amount shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 10. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.