Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1823 (PNJ)

Sombir v. Vijay Singh

2011-09-28

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2011
JUDGMENT VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. 1. Sombir claimant has brought this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him in a sum of 24,000/-by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 20.9.2009. The claim of Sombir – appellant for compensation is as under: 2. On 10.9.2007, Sombir along with Mangal was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-16E-0733 (Hero Honda Splendor make) from Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani towards Hansi chowk. At about 5.00 PM, when he was in front of shop of Vikash Sports, one Marshal jeep bearing registration No. HR-32B-6582 driven by respondent No.1, came from the opposite side. It was driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed on account of which, respondent No.1 lost control over the vehicle and the same had hit the motorcycle on account of which, the petitioner suffered multiple injuries and the motorcycle was damaged. 3. The respondents resisted the claim petition. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition. Maintainability of the petition is also questioned. It was claimed to be a hit and run case and in order to get compensation, respondent No.1 is stated to have been falsely implicated. The vehicle was stated to be insured with respondent No.3 and it is averred that in case the claim petition is allowed, the insurance company would be liable to indemnify the insured. 5. Respondent No. 3 has claimed, inter-alia, violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured as respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following consolidated issues were framed on account of consolidation of another claim petition with it. I).Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving vehicle No.HR-32B/6582 on 10.9.2007 and due to which petitioner received injuries and also damage caused to the vehicle of petitioner Rakesh? OPP II).If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OP Parties III).Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR IV).Whether the respondent/owner violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy?OPR Insurance company? V).Whether the respondent driver has a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time? OPR VI).Relief. OP Parties III).Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR IV).Whether the respondent/owner violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy?OPR Insurance company? V).Whether the respondent driver has a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time? OPR VI).Relief. 7. Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of 24,000/- in favour of Sombir, vide the impugned award. 8. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal. 9. I have heard Shri R.A.Sheoran, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri M.B.Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and have gone through the record. 10. It is a case where evidence is that the claimant remained hospitalized twice for a total period of 16 days. He although suffered injuries with no permanent disability, yet he is to be duly compensated for the injuries he has suffered. 11. The claimant remained admitted in General Hospital, Bhiwani from 10.9.2007 to 17.9.2007 and again from 19.9.2007 to 27.9.2007. A sum of 8,000/-has been awarded towards hospitalization. Learned Tribunal has kept in mind that though the treatment was free at General Hospital, Bhiwani, yet medicines and equipments are required to be purchased from the open market and, therefore, a sum of 5,000/-in lump-sum was awarded for medicines. For rich diet and transportation, a sum of 5,000/-has been awarded and a sum of 6,000/-has been awarded for pain and suffering. 12. The period of hospitalization of 16 days would set the tone for assessment of quantum of compensation in this case. The injuries were not simple. The appellant underwent operation at the hospital and this would prove that whatever he suffered, though not capable of leaving permanent disability, yet was serious enough. A sum of 5,000/-for transportation and special diet would be highly inadequate. No amount has been awarded for expenses on attendants during the period of hospitalization of 16 days. The claimant deserves enhancement of compensation on other aspects also. Consequently, I find that a sum of 40,000/-was at least required to be awarded to compensate the claimant for his expenses and for pain and suffering etc. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal in a sum of 24,000/-is enhanced to 40,000/-with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. remaining the same. Appeal allowed.