Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1274 (PNJ)

Dharam Pal Dilawari v. Iqbal Singh

2014-09-10

REKHA MITTAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Rekha Mittal, J. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned appeals as these have emerged out of common award dated 14.02.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the appellants have been awarded compensation in regard to injuries sustained by them in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, Gypsy bearing No. PB-08-F-2260, driven by Iqbal Singh respondent No. 1. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to appellant Dharam Pal Dilawari under the following heads: 1. Special compensation = Rs.30,000/- 2. Loss of income = Rs.50,000/- 3. Pain and suffering = Rs.20,000/- Promila Dilawari - appellant has been awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.30,000/- as special compensation and another amount of Rs.20,000/- (mentioned as special compensation) though appears to be awarded for pain and suffering. Counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation to both the injured victim in regard to disability suffered by them due to sustaining of injuries in the occurrence and disability certificate Ex.PW9/A of Promila Dilawari and Ex.PW9/B in respect of Dharam Pal Dilawari were proved on record by Lekh Raj (PW9), an official from the office of Civil Surgeon, Amritsar. It is argued with vehemence that as the original certificates were issued by the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, the same being public document can be taken into consideration without examining the doctor, who had issued the certificates. For this purpose, he has referred to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in M M Rajappa v. Mal Haha Uru Bajappa, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1633 and Paranand Katara v. Union of India and others, 1989 ACJ 1000 (SC). The Tribunal has awarded less compensation in regard to loss of income of Dharam Pal Dilawari in view of his income reflected in two income tax returns Exs.P2 and P3 for the year 1992-93 and 1993-94. It is further submitted that as per income tax return for the year 1992-93 relating to income of the victim prior to the accident on 08.04.1993, he was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month from the business of exporting of shawls to various countries. It is further submitted that as per income tax return for the year 1992-93 relating to income of the victim prior to the accident on 08.04.1993, he was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month from the business of exporting of shawls to various countries. No compensation has been awarded in favour of Promila Dilawari in regard to loss of income despite the fact that her income tax return in regard to her being a partner in a business concern was proved on record. Another submission made by counsel is that an amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in regard to pain and suffering in each case is liable to be enhanced. The appellants are also entitled to get compensation in regard to expenses on special diet and services of an attendant etc. Counsel for the contesting respondent has supported the awarded passed by the Tribunal with the submissions that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record that business income of Dharam Pal Dilawari for the year 1993-94 has reduced on account of his having sustained injuries in the accident. It is further argued that there is nothing on record to suggest that business being carried on by the victim was ever closed due to sustaining of injuries by him to claim loss of income on the basis of comparison of income in income tax returns for the year 1992-93 and 1993-94. With regard to loss of income of Promila Dilawari, it is argued that there is no document produced on record that the victim was involved in any business activity, thus, injuries sustained in the occurrence created any hindrance in performance of those activities. It is further argued that disability certificates were exhibited in the statement of an official from the office of Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, but no doctor was examined to prove the extent of disability suffered by the injured victims. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income for a period of five months. As the victim suffered fragmented fracture shaft femur with gross displacement, the learned Tribunal has taken a very reasonable view by assessing loss of income of Rs.50,000/- in the year 1993. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income for a period of five months. As the victim suffered fragmented fracture shaft femur with gross displacement, the learned Tribunal has taken a very reasonable view by assessing loss of income of Rs.50,000/- in the year 1993. Disability certificate Ex.PW9/B issued by the office of Civil Surgeon, Amritsar indicates that the victim suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% due to slight restriction of movement of right knee and wasting of muscles. No doubt, the appellant did not examine any doctor to prove the disability. However, since the document has been proved by an official from the office of Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, it cannot be ignored because the act done by a public servant in discharge of his official functions is accepted as correct unless proved otherwise. Keeping in view the extent and nature of disability suffered by the victim, he is awarded additional amount of Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities of life owing to disability. Further, in the light of nature of injuries suffered, period of confinement in the hospital, he is also awarded another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet and services of an attendant. The enhanced amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till payment thereof. However, in case the Insurance Company deposits the amount within a period of 45 days in the Tribunal, the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Ex.PW9/A is the disability certificate of Promila Dilawari, according to which, the victim had residual disability of Nasal bone to the extent of 30%. The certificate does not indicate if the said disability is temporary or permanent in nature. However, keeping in view that there is disability of nasal bone, the appellant is awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities. She is awarded another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses on special diet and services of an attendant. She is also entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income keeping in mind loss of her services as a housewife for a period of about two months. She is awarded another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses on special diet and services of an attendant. She is also entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income keeping in mind loss of her services as a housewife for a period of about two months. The enhanced amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till payment thereof. However, in case the Insurance Company deposits the amount within a period of 45 days in the Tribunal, the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.