Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2995 (PNJ)

Union of India v. Jaswinder Kaur

2006-07-24

NIRMAL YADAV

body2006
JUDGMENT Nirmal Yadav, J. - These two appeals filed by the Union of India against the award dated 12.1.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, together with cross-objections in FAO No. 2168/1994, are being disposed of by this common order as they have arisen out of the same accident. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.8.1990 one Jagmohan Singh, Advocate along with Tara Singh has coming from Nabha to Patiala on scooter bearing registration No. PB-11-6923. He was pillion rider while Tara Singh was driving the scooter. Another person, namely, Jagjit Singh was following them on a scooter bearing registration No PAS 9799. When the scooter driven by Tara Singh reached near the Rohti Bridge near a Swa Mill, a Military Jonga bearing No. 89-B-48844-M was seen coming at a high speed from the opposite direction. It was trying to overtake a bus. The scooter driven by Tara Singh was at a slow speed and it was on the correct side of the road. Tara Singh slowed down the scooter and took it to extreme left side on the kacha road and Jagjit Singh stopped at some distance behind the scooter of Tara Singh. The Military Jonga, which was being driven at high speed, came to the wrong side and struck against the scooter of Tara Singh. As a result of the impact, Tara Singh fell down on the kacha portion while Jagmohan Singh was crushed and pressed against a Tahli tree by the Jonga. The driver of the Jonga disclosed his name as R.S. Yadav. With the help of some other persons, who were sitting in the Jonga, Jagmohan Singh was pulled out. Jagjit Singh and others removed Jagmohan Singh to Nabha, but he succumbed to injuries even before reaching the hospital. Jagjit Singh also received injuries in the accident. The Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident, resulting in death of Jagmohan Singh and injuries to Tara Singh, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the Jonga. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in the case of Tara Singh, who had suffered shortening of leg by one inch and Rs. 4,32,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased Jagmohan Singh, who was an Advocate practising at Nabha. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in the case of Tara Singh, who had suffered shortening of leg by one inch and Rs. 4,32,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased Jagmohan Singh, who was an Advocate practising at Nabha. In the present appeals, the Union of India has challenged the findings of the Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation as well as negligence in causing the accident. It is stated that as per statement of R.S. Yadav, who was driving the Jonga, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter driver. It is stated that when the Jonga was overtaking the truck, the scooter had crossed Jongas front side and front portion of Jonga hit the scooter at its back from right side. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants have contended that it is proved from the evidence on record that driver of the Jonga was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the Jonga has himself admitted that while he was overtaking the truck, the truck suddenly swerved to right side and, therefore, he also swerved the Jonga to right side and, in the process, his vehicle swerved more towards right side on account of the road being slippery due to drizzling. If it was drizzling and road was slippery, the driver of the Jonga should have been more cautious while overtaking the truck. In case the road was not clear, he should have waited till its clearance. Jagjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate, who appeared as PW-2, and Tara Singh, which was overtaking another vehicle was on high speed. It swerved to the right side and caused the accident. 4. Having regard to the evidence, as discussed above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence. 5. The appellants have also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants in the case of deceased Jagmohan Singh. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2,000/- and has applied the multiplier of 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Even the claimants have not filed any cross-objections against the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation. 2,000/- and has applied the multiplier of 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Even the claimants have not filed any cross-objections against the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the appeals being bereft of merit are dismissed. Cross-Objection No. 13-CII of 1995 : 6. Learned counsel for the claimant-Tara Singh argued that Tribunal has earred in not taking into consideration the permanent disability suffered by him. It is argued that the claimant has suffered shortening of leg by one inch and he remained hospitalised for quite some time. The claimant has suffered loss of earning and earning capacity on account of shortening of his leg. He suffered multiple fractures of both the bones of right leg and was plastered four times for the duration of six weeks each. Therefore, he remained bed ridden for 7 months. He spent Rs. 40,000/- for his treatment. He cannot even walk more than half a kilometre at a stretch. He cannot attend to his daily routine, which he used to attend before the accident. It is stated that claimant was working as Junior Engineer at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month at that time. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account of expenditure incurred on medicines, services rendered by the family members of the claimant, physical & mental agony and loss of income on account of his being incapacitated for the rest of the life. It is, therefore, argued that compensation on above counts may be awarded. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as 2004(2) Accidents Compensation Judicial Reports 388, Kandhilal v. Rajesh Kumar Rawat and others. 7. For assessment of damages in case of bodily injuries, the broad and general principles have to be applied. The Court should award such an amount of compensation as will put the injured in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the injuries. Of course, no award of money can possibly compensate an injured and renew the fractured frame. The Court should award such an amount of compensation as will put the injured in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the injuries. Of course, no award of money can possibly compensate an injured and renew the fractured frame. However, an endeavour has to be made to assess the damage taking into consideration the pain and suffering undergone and for the impairment apparent from the injuries. For awarding a just and reasonable compensation in such cases, a fair assessment has to be made taking into account all the relevant factors. The compensation sought to be awarded, should commensurate with the extent, gravity and duration of injury. 8. In the present case, the claimant-Tara Singh has suffered shortening of leg by one inch. He remained confined to bed for seven months as he suffered multiple fractures. In these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things, if the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,20,000/- keeping in view the permanent disability, expenditure incurred on treatment, services rendered by the family members of the injured, special diet, etc. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. The cross-objections filed by the claimant are thus, partly allowed while appeals filed by the appellants-Union of India are dismissed in the above terms. Appeals dismissed.