Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 839 (PNJ)

Gurmukh Singh v. Baljit Singh

2006-03-01

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
JUDGMENT VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The claimant is appellant before this Court. He was injured in an accident occurred on June 24,1995. Gurmukh Singh was the pillion rider when the scooter he was riding was hit by Bus No.PB-ll/F-9265 driven by Baljit Singh and owned by Satbir Singh, respondent. The said bus was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. As a result of the aforesaid accident, right leg of the appellant was injured with multiple factures. The right leg had to be amputated. He had to be repeatedly operated upon and spent considerable time in the hospital. The claimant further pleaded that he had spent nearly an amount of Rs.75,OOO/- in his treatment and had spent another amount of Rs.45,OOO/- for getting an artificial leg fitted. At the time of accident, the claimant was working as a tractor mechanic repair shop and was aged 35 years. 2. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence available on the record found that Baljit Singh, the driver of the offending bus, was indeed driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore, had caused the accident in question. It was also found that Gurmukh Singh had suffered multiple facture on his right leg and as a result thereof his right leg had to be ultimately amputated. However, the learned Tribunal assessed the total compensation payable to the claimants as Rs.2,50,OOO/-. Besides an amount of Rs.15,OOO/- was awarded as amount spent by him on the medicines and Rs.15,OOO/- for pain and suffering. In this manner, the total amount payable to the claimants came to Rs.2,70,000/-. The aforesaid liability was fastened upon all three respondents, namely, driver, owner as well as insurance company. The claimant was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 4. Shri Ashok K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant has vehemently argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was too meagre and while awarding the aforesaid compensation, the learned Tribunal has neither taken into consideration the permanent disability suffered by injured claimant nor has taken into consideration his loss of income. 4. Shri Ashok K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant has vehemently argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was too meagre and while awarding the aforesaid compensation, the learned Tribunal has neither taken into consideration the permanent disability suffered by injured claimant nor has taken into consideration his loss of income. Even the amount spent by the claimant injured on surgery and getting the artificial limb fitted, has been ignored. 5. After perusal of the award, I find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. 6. The evidence on record shows that the claimant-injured was aged 35 years at the time of accident in question. He was running a tractor mechanic repair shop. Although he has claimed that his income was Rs.6,000/- per month but the aforesaid amount may be exaggeration. Even if I take the claimant injured as able- bodied person, still his income could be safely assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month. The injured had suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 60% when his right leg had been amputated. Obviously, the claimant would be not in a position to carry on vocation which he was carrying on prior to the accident. It has further come in evidence that the claimant had spent an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in Singla Nursing Home where he got the treatment. Dr. Sanjiv Tandon has also appeared as PW5 deposed that Rs.35,000/- were spent by the claimant on the treatment given by him in his clinic. Besides this, it is also apparent that the claimant injured must have spent considerable amount on the medicines as well. It has further come in evidence that the claimant had spent Rs. 45,000/- for getting an artificial leg fitted. Permanent loss of income of the claimant has also to be taken into consideration. In this manner, the amount spent by the claimant for treatment and artificial limb comes to Rs. 1,20,000/-. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and also taking into consideration that at time of accident claimant was merely 35 years of age and had suffered a permanent disability, it would be more appropriate to assess the compensation at Rs. 4,50,000/- in lumpsum. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be payable alongwith interest as assessed by the Tribunal. 8. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and also taking into consideration that at time of accident claimant was merely 35 years of age and had suffered a permanent disability, it would be more appropriate to assess the compensation at Rs. 4,50,000/- in lumpsum. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be payable alongwith interest as assessed by the Tribunal. 8. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award of the Tribunal is modified.