Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2692 (PNJ)

Satya Devi v. Dinesh Kumar

2017-11-09

SUDHIR MITTAL

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Sudhir Mittal, J.: (Oral) - By this common judgment I am deciding two appeals (FAO No. 1067of 2006 and FAO No. 3557 of 2005), one filed by the claimants for enhancementand the other filed by respondent No. 2 – Insurance Company claiming dischargefrom liability to pay the compensation. 2. The claimant alongwith his brother was driving home on a motorcycle at about 11.45 p.m. on 27.6.2004. The said motorcycle was being driven bybrother of the claimant whereas the claimant himself was riding pillion. Whenthey approached Devi Lal Chowk, Karnal, the driver of the motor cycle wasdazzled by the bright lights of a heavy vehicle plying on the G.T. Road, as a resultof which he lost control of the vehicle and it fell on the road. The driver did notsustain any serious injuries whereas the claimant was seriously injured. Thisaccident was witnessed by one Lajpat (PW-4) who took the claimant to VijayHospital in Karnal while the driver of the motorcycle (brother of the claimant),went home to inform the family. As a result of this accident left leg of theclaimant was amputated below the knee, on account of which he suffered 50%permanent disability of the total body. 3. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Karnal(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) found that the motor cycle of the brother ofthe claimant was infact involved in the accident and the claimant suffered injurieson account of the accident as explained by the claimant. Resultantly, acompensation of Rs.1,78,511/- was granted to the claimant alongwith interest @ 9%per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently contends thatthe accident of the motor cycle has not been proved and, therefore, the liability cannot be foisted upon it. It is his submission that had the accident taken place in themanner suggested by the claimant, his brother would not have left him on the roadand would have himself taken him to hospital, thus, falsifying the story put forthby the claimant. It is further argued that the FIR has been registered on 29.6.2004whereas the accident took place on 27.6.2004 and there is a delay of two days, inwhich period, the story has been concocted by the claimant. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand submits that thefindings of the Tribunal are rational and he supports the same. 6. It is further argued that the FIR has been registered on 29.6.2004whereas the accident took place on 27.6.2004 and there is a delay of two days, inwhich period, the story has been concocted by the claimant. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand submits that thefindings of the Tribunal are rational and he supports the same. 6. The Tribunal has examined this aspect of the matter in some detail andhas held as follows :- “So far as the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 thatthe claimant was taken by PW4 Lajpat in the hospital of Dr. VijayGupta and respondent No. 1, brother of the claimant, had gone to hishome to inform about the accident to his relatives highly improbableand the statement of PW2 Dr. Vijay Gupta who stated that theclaimant was brought to his hospital by some passerby who left thehospital immediately is concerned, in this regard it is pertinent tomention here that the case of the claimant is this that at the time ofaccident he alongwith his brother respondent No. 1 was coming fromRanwar Road, Karnal, towards his house situated in City Karnal onthe offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent No., 1and due to dazzling lights of heavy vehicles plying on GT Road whichfell on the eyes of respondent No. 1 causing imbalance the offendingvehicle and both of them fell down on the road and sustained injuries.To support the above version of the claimant, PW4 Lajpat who hadtaken the claimant in the hospital of Dr. Vijay Gupta and respondentNo. 1 Dinesh did not accompany him to the hospital and he (Dinesh)had gone to inform the relations and Dinesh met him after about aweek. He also stated that he knew Dinesh before the accident andDinesh was with Vishnu at the time of accident and he witnessed thesame. He also frankly admitted that he did not know before theaccident that Dinesh was real brother of Vishnu and he came to knowabout this fact after the accident. He also stated that he had seen theregistration number of the motorcycle at the spot. PW2 Dr. VijayGupta undoubtedly stated that the claimant/injured was brought bysome passerby who immediately left the hospital but it does not leadto the conclusion that PW4 Lajpat was not that person who had takenthe claimant to the hospital of Dr. He also stated that he had seen theregistration number of the motorcycle at the spot. PW2 Dr. VijayGupta undoubtedly stated that the claimant/injured was brought bysome passerby who immediately left the hospital but it does not leadto the conclusion that PW4 Lajpat was not that person who had takenthe claimant to the hospital of Dr. Vijay Gupta PW2, rather it goes tosupport the stand of the claimant that only one person hadaccompanied the claimant/ injured to the hospital of Dr. Vijay Guptaand respondent No. 1 had gone to his house to inform about theaccident to his relatives. PW2 Dr. Vijay Gupta also stated that thecondition of the claimant/injured was critical and that might be thereason for Lajpat PW4 who had taken the claimant to the hospital ofDr. Vijay Gupta and respondent No. 1 had gone to his house toinform about the accident to his relatives. PW2 Dr. Vijay Gupta alsostated that the condition of the claimant/injured was critical and thatmight be the reason for Lajpat PW4 who had taken the claimant to thehospital that he did not prefer to stay in the hospital and did not giveconsent for the treatment. Had the claimant sustained injuries fromsomewhere else, he could easily involve any other vehicle seekingcompensation and not involved the vehicle of his own brother as hewas having ample time after the accident to manufacture a false storyregarding the accident in question as the daily diary report wasregistered on 29.6.2004 whereas the accident in question took placein the intervening night of 27/28.6.2004. On the other hand, not evenan iota of evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents that theoffending vehicle was not involved in the accident in question and thesame has falsely been implicated.” 7. The view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible one and cannot be saidto be perverse, therefore, I accept the said view and hold that the claimant sufferedinjuries in the manner detailed by him. 8. The next issue to be decided is whether the Tribunal has assessed thecompensation correctly? The claimant stepped into the witness box as PW-5 andfiled his affidavit Ex. P-7. As per his statement his income was Rs.38,000/- perannum which was being earned by him by running a tea stall. The Tribunal has notaccepted this statement on the ground that no receipt/bill book etc. has been placedon record to substantiate the same. The claimant stepped into the witness box as PW-5 andfiled his affidavit Ex. P-7. As per his statement his income was Rs.38,000/- perannum which was being earned by him by running a tea stall. The Tribunal has notaccepted this statement on the ground that no receipt/bill book etc. has been placedon record to substantiate the same. I cannot accept this reasoning given by theTribunal for the reason that the person running a tea stall by the road side cannotbe expected to maintain accounts and records regarding his income. The accidenttook place in the year 2004 and the income claimed by the claimant is merelyRs.3166/- per month, which cannot be said to be highly inflated having regard to thenature of business being done by him. Nothing is on record to suggest that theclaimant made a false statement with regard to his source of income and theincome itself. However, it is common knowledge that a claimant tries to claim alittle more than what he actually earns. Keeping this aspect in view, I hold that theannual income of the claimant can safely be taken to be around Rs.30,000/- perannum. The disability of 50% in respect of the whole body has been proved onrecord by way of statement of PW-7 Dr. Vinod Kumar and also the disabilitycertificate Ex. P1. The age of the claimant has been taken as 48 years by theTribunal and I accept the same. The compensation of Rs.11,511/- assessed by theTribunal on account of medical expenses is based upon the bills placed on recordas Ex. P-8 to P-14. Under the head of general damages for pain and sufferingcompensation of Rs.5,000/- only can be granted statutorily which the learnedTribunal has granted. 9. In view of the above, multiplier of 13 taken by the Tribunal is correctand the loss of income on account of permanent disability is, thus, assessed asRs.1,80,000/-. To this, sum of Rs.11,511/- is added on account of medical expensesand Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. The claimant is entitled to a total ofRs.1,96,511/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 10. The appeal of the claimant is, thus, partially allowed and that of the Insurance Company is dismissed. To this, sum of Rs.11,511/- is added on account of medical expensesand Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. The claimant is entitled to a total ofRs.1,96,511/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 10. The appeal of the claimant is, thus, partially allowed and that of the Insurance Company is dismissed. The enhanced amount will be paid by theInsurance Company within a period of three months from the date of receipt ofcertified copy of this judgment alongwith interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date offiling of claim petition till the date of payment.