Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1798 (HP)

Jasvir Singh v. Amer Singh

2015-12-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 4.7.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in MAC No. 6-S/2 of 2007, titled Sh. Jasvir Singh versus Shri Amer Singh and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.74000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. The claimant, by the medium of appeal being FAO No. 369 of 2009, has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of the compensation and owner has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 453 of 2009, on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in discharging the insurer from the liability. 3. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award, thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Ashok Sharma learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has stated that the driver has renewed the licence from time to time and produced the copy of the same which was also handed over to the learned counsel for the insurer for verification. On the last date, the learned counsel for the insurer placed on record a communication which appears to be made to him by the competent officer concerned and sought time to seek instructions. Today he has frankly conceded that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence. His statement is taken on record. 5. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in exonerating the insure from the liability. Accordingly, the appeal (FAO No. 453 of 2009), filed by the owner is allowed and the insurer is saddled with the liability. 6. Now coming to the appeal (FAO No. 369 of 2009), filed by the claimant for enhancement. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.74000/- under the seven heads as recorded in para 26 of the impugned award, which appears to be too meager on the fact of it, for the following reasons. 7. Dr. Ramesh Chauhan (PW1) has stated that the petitioner was examined by a board of doctors to assess the disability. 25% permanent disability relating to the left lower limb was found. Certificate Ext. 7. Dr. Ramesh Chauhan (PW1) has stated that the petitioner was examined by a board of doctors to assess the disability. 25% permanent disability relating to the left lower limb was found. Certificate Ext. PW1/A in this regard was issued by the Board. It bears his signatures and the signatures of the other members of the Board. The injury was on the knee. The patient has to suffer pain throughout his life. In future, he will develop osteoarthritis and may also require the knee replacement at a later stage. He will not be in a position to work in the fields in a routine manner. 8. While going through the statement made by the doctor, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability, has affected his physical frame and his income also. Thus, I deem it proper to exercise guess work and award Rs.50,000/- under the head “Pain and sufferings” instead of Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.25000/- under the head “Loss of amenities of life”, instead of Rs. 5000/- awarded by the Tribunal, Rs. 1 lac under the head “loss of earnings” in lump sum. The amount awarded under the other heads is maintained. The claimant is thus held entitled to Rs.1,00,000+ Rs.50,000+ Rs.25000/- + Rs.14000/-. i.e., Rs.10,000/- under the head “Medical expenses and expenses for future treatment”, Rs.2000/-, under the head “Attendants Expenses” and Rs.2000 under the head “Special diet and nutrition.” Total Rs.1,89,000/-, with interest, as awarded. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed, the impugned award is modified and compensation is enhanced, as indicated hereinabove. 10. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount alongwith 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition, so far as it relates to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, and from the date of the impugned award so far it relates to the enhanced amount, within eight weeks from today. 11. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the amount, in favour of the claimant, strictly, as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. The amount deposited by the owner is directed to be released to the owner minus Rs.25,000/- statutory amount, which is awarded as costs payable in favour of the claimant. 12. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. 13. The amount deposited by the owner is directed to be released to the owner minus Rs.25,000/- statutory amount, which is awarded as costs payable in favour of the claimant. 12. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. 13. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.