Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3091 (PNJ)

Sampat Singh v. Raja Ram

2006-08-02

M.M.KUMAR

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. This is claimants appeal filed under Sec.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity the Act), challenging award dated 23.1.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, (for brevity the Tribunal ). It has been held that claimant- appellant sustained injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle No. HRM-5421 which was being driven by one Raja Ramrespondent No.1. It has also been categorically held that the claimant appellant who was aged 40 years at the time of accident suffered five injures on his person which is proved by MLR Ex. PA. The aforementioned MLR has been proved by PW1 Dr. P. K. Jain. The injuries as given in MLR Ex. PA are as under: 1. There was a fracture compound of the right leg lower 1/3rd.2. There was a swelling on the wrist and right forearm lower part adjoining wrist. Movements of this joint were very much tender and crackling sounds heard. Advised X-ray.3. There was swelling on the wrist at left forearm lower part adjoining wrist. Movements were tender. Advised for X-ray.4. A lacerated wound 5 cms. X 1 cms. On the right forehead. Bone was fractured and brain matter was coming out. Bleeding was profuse.5. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.3 x 0.8 cm on the right side of forehead just above the four injuries. 2. The eye witness account of the accident has been unfolded by one Ram Avtar PW2, who had disclosed that the claimant- appellant was coming on a bicycle when a motor-cycle being driven by respondent No.1 dashed in him which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant- appellant is stated to have suffered injuries on his forehead and other parts of the body and thereafter injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul. PW3 also corroborated the version of PW2 in respect of factum of accident and that respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving his motor-cycle. The finding of the Tribunal appears in para 16, which shows that respondent No.1 was also smelling alcohol. The aforementioned para reads as under: 16. PW3 also corroborated the version of PW2 in respect of factum of accident and that respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving his motor-cycle. The finding of the Tribunal appears in para 16, which shows that respondent No.1 was also smelling alcohol. The aforementioned para reads as under: 16. In view of the consistent statement of PW2 and PW3 and the inconsistent version of respondent No.1, it is clearly proved that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle in question by respondent No.1 belonging to respondent No.2 as the respondent No.2 has admitted that he did not bother to see whether his name has been changed in the registration certificate. From the statement of PW1-Dr. P. K. Jain, it is also proved that the petitioner as well respondent No.1 had sustained injuries in a motorvehicular accident and that at the time of examination, the respondent No.1 was smelling alcohol. Thus, it can safely be held that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle No. HRM-6421 by respondent No.1. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. " The claimant- appellant was held entitled to a princely sum of Rs.4,000/- on account of injuries and mental agony suffered by him. The compensation was ordered to be paid by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly as well as severally. He was also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. There are numerous factors which have weighed with the Tribunal for awarding such a partly sum. Those factors have been elaborated in para 18 and the same reads as under: 18. In the present case, the petitioner has not proved that how many days, he received treatment and from which doctor or hospital. The factum that the petitioner received treatment at different places does not prove that he spent Rs.15,000/-on his treatment. The petitioner has orally given his income as Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/- but there is no evidence about the income of the petitioner nor it could be proved that because of accident, how the petitioner has been rendered unfit to do any work. No details about amount spent on medicines and good diet have been placed on case file. The petitioner has orally given his income as Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/- but there is no evidence about the income of the petitioner nor it could be proved that because of accident, how the petitioner has been rendered unfit to do any work. No details about amount spent on medicines and good diet have been placed on case file. Even the oral version about the expenses is highly contrary as the petitioner has stated that he spent Rs.1500/-, then stated Rs.15,000/- on his treatment. Thus, there is neither any documentary evidence nor any oral evidence about the factum of treatment expenses viz. on medicines and good diet. 4. Similarly, the petitioner has failed to prove loss of wages because of the accident. However, keeping in view the injuries suffered by the petitioner as is evident from Ex. PA, the petitioner is awarded Rs.1000/- for medicines and special diet and Rs.3000/- for pain and suffering, thus, the petitioner is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4000/- to be paid by the respondents No.1 and 2. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. " Mr. Ajay Jain, learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant has argued that the Tribunal has failed to apply its mind by concluding that the claimant- appellant has failed to prove on record the period of his admission- treatment and to also establish the doctor or the hospital who treated the injured. He has also attacked the finding that the claimant appellant has failed to establish his income and had orally stated the same to be Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/- per month. The last reason given for meager amount of compensation is that the claimant- appellant could not prove that he has been rendered unfit to do any work on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the statement of Dr. P. K. Jain, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Narnaul. The aforementioned doctor had stated that on 15.12.1984, he medically examined the claimant- appellant who was aged about 40 years. After stating the five injuries to which reference has already been made, my attention has also been drawn to another injury like abrasions and contusions. The witness has stated that the patient was in semiconscious state and his B. P. was unrecordable. Injury No.5 was an incised wound of 1.5 cm. After stating the five injuries to which reference has already been made, my attention has also been drawn to another injury like abrasions and contusions. The witness has stated that the patient was in semiconscious state and his B. P. was unrecordable. Injury No.5 was an incised wound of 1.5 cm. x 0.3 cm x 0.8 cm on the right side of forehead and injury No.4 shows that the brain matter was coming out which was a lacerated wound by 5 cms x 1 cm on the right fore-head, and the bone was also fractured. The copy of the MLR has been exhibited as Ex. PA and the patient was referred to Medical College, Rohtak. When the claimant- appellant appeared in the witness box he had stated that on account of injuries he was rendered unfit to do any vocation in order to earn his livelihood and his right eye vision has also been adversely affected. He has further asserted that by plying camel-cart and doing other agricultural work, he used to earn Rs.1000/- to Rs 1200/- per month. He has stated to have spent Rs.15,000/- on his treatment. In the cross-examination, he stated that cycle was broken and he had paid repair charges to its owner Sat Narain from whom it was borrowed. The claimant- appellant further insisted that he had receipt of the expenses incurred which would show Rs.15,000/- was spent. 5. Mr. Tara Chand, learned Counsel appearing for the ownerrespondent Raja Ram has argued that in the absence of any concrete evidence on record showing the expenditure incurred on the treatment and the duration of treatment, it would not be possible to award any further compensation except the one awarded by the Tribunal. According to learned Counsel, various factors extracted by the Tribunal in para 18 cannot be ignored. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that the nature of injuries themselves would indicate that the claimant- appellant was seriously injured and must have spent two to three weeks in the hospital. Injury No.1 shows compound fracture of the right leg. Injury No.4 shows lacerated wound of 5 cm x 1 cm on the right fore-head and the bone was fractured. Even brain matter was coming out and bleeding was profuse. Injury No.1 shows compound fracture of the right leg. Injury No.4 shows lacerated wound of 5 cm x 1 cm on the right fore-head and the bone was fractured. Even brain matter was coming out and bleeding was profuse. Injury No.5 shows that there was incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm x 08 cm on the right side of fore-head just above the four injuries. Therefore, it is not unsafe to infer that the petitioner must have spent at least Rs.5,000/-; whereas the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, the amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- on account of expenses on medicines. Rs.1,000/- deserves to be awarded on account of special diet and Rs.4,000/ for pain and sufferings. Thus, the appellant- claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by respondents No.1 and 2. The enhanced amount of compensation shall bear interest @ 9% per annum whereas interest at the rate of 12% per annum is maintained in respect of the compensation of Rs.4,000/- already awarded. 7. In view of the above, the appellant- claimant is held entitled to the compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of injuries, mental agony, suffered by him due to rash and negligent driving of mother-cycle No. HRM-6421 by respondent No.1. The amount is payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly as well as severally. The petitioner is held entitled to charge interest at the rate of 12% on the original award of Rs.4,000/- and 9% in respect of the enhanced amount. 8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. .