Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1076 (HP)

Sajjal Kumar v. Baldev Singh

2016-06-17

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.11.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 2 of 2009, titled Sh. Sajjal Kumar versus Sh. Baldev singh and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, with costs of Rs.3000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Owner driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, has attained the finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award so far as it relates to the quantum of compensation. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 5. The fact that the claimant is victim of a vehicular accident which was allegedly caused by the driver Baldev Singh on 12.9.2008 at about 3.30 p.m., at Bangana, while driving vehicle No. HP-55-6639, rashly and negligently, is not in dispute. The discharge slip issued by the Zonal Hospital, Una, H.P. Ext. PW1/A do disclose that the claimant remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 12.9.2008 to 23.9.2008. Thus he remained admitted for 12 days in the hospital. He was also put on medicine. 6. The claimant examined Dr. Shiv Pal Singh as PW1 who has proved the vouchers which are on the file as Ext. P1 to Ext. P4. He has also deposed that the claimant was fixed plaster for six weeks and he had suffered permanent injury. 7. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in not awarding compensation under the head “Pain and Sufferings”, Attendant Charges” for 12.9.2008 to 23.9.2008 and diet charges. The only amount of Rs.35,000/- was awarded in terms of para 11 of the impugned award, which on the face of it is not legally correct. The clamant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head “Pain and Suffering”, Rs. 10,000/- under the head “Attendant Charges” and Rs.10,000 under the head “Medical Expenses”. 8. The claimant was not in a position to earn, at least for four months, as discussed by the learned Tribunal in para 11 of the impugned award. The clamant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head “Pain and Suffering”, Rs. 10,000/- under the head “Attendant Charges” and Rs.10,000 under the head “Medical Expenses”. 8. The claimant was not in a position to earn, at least for four months, as discussed by the learned Tribunal in para 11 of the impugned award. He is also entitled to Rs.25000/- under the head “Loss of Income” and Rs.25000/- for “Loss of Amenities of Life” for the said period. 9. The claimant has also placed on record application being CMP No.70 of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for proving the disability certificate which do disclose that the claimant has suffered 50% disability. The disability certificate is a public document, needs not to be proved and is taken on record. Thus, the claimant is also entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head “Loss of future Income”. 10. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,70,000/- in toto alongwith 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization. 11. Having said, the appeal is allowed alongwith CMP No. 70 of 2010, the impugned award is modified, and the amount of compensation is enhanced as indicated hereinabove. 12. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today in the Registry and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in his bank account, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. 13. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.