Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 640 (HP)

Nidhi v. Punjab Roadways “PUNBUS” Roop Nagar

2018-04-16

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh in MAC Petition No. 298/2013 vide award dated 22.11.2014, petitioner-claimant (hereinafter, ‘claimant’) has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for enhancement of award amount. 2. Facts as emerge from the record are that the claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,15,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident which took place at Dhaliara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh on 12.4.2012. Claimant alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, who at the relevant time was driving vehicle No. PB-12J- 8103 owned by respondent No. 1 i.e. Punjab Roadways “PUNBUS”, Roopnagar Depot. Allegedly, respondent No. 2 drove the offending vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he was unable to control the same, due to which bus fell down the road and resulted in injuries to the claimant. On account of injuries suffered by the claimant in the aforesaid accident, she had to remain admitted in Dr. Rajinder Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda from 12.4.2012 to 16.4.2012. Claimant also remained admitted in the same hospital with effect from 23.4.2012 to 24.4.2012. Claimant stated that she was a tailor by profession and claimed that due to fracture of her ribs and chest pain, she was unable to do tailoring and had lost efficiency to earn her livelihood. Claimant claimed that she used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month from her occupation and she incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- on her treatment and was likely to incur much more as her treatment was still going on. Claimant claimed compensation under various heads as under: “Medical Expenditure including taxi & attendant charges Rs. 30,000/- For pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- Loss of income (past and future) Rs.3,50,000/- Special diet Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.5,15,000/-” 3. Respondent No.1 opposed aforesaid claim of the claimant on the ground that petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. However, on merits, respondent No.1 admitted that on 12.4.2012, respondent No. 2 namely Jagjit Singh, driver was on duty. 25,000/- Loss of income (past and future) Rs.3,50,000/- Special diet Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.5,15,000/-” 3. Respondent No.1 opposed aforesaid claim of the claimant on the ground that petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. However, on merits, respondent No.1 admitted that on 12.4.2012, respondent No. 2 namely Jagjit Singh, driver was on duty. Learned Tribunal below on the basis of evidence led on record by claimant, held her entitled to a compensation of Rs.47,626/-. In the aforesaid background, claimant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein enhancement of amount awarded by learned Tribunal below. 4. Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel representing the claimant vehemently argued that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal below is not just and fair vis-à-vis injuries suffered by the claimant, on account of accident as such, impugned award being contrary to the evidence available on record deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Gupta further contended that the learned Tribunal below, while awarding meager sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering, failed to take note of the fact that the claimant was unable to do work of tailoring for a considerable time. Mr. Gupta further contended that the medical evidence adduced on record clearly suggests that claimant suffered fracture of ribs and as such, she became incapable of pursuing her occupation of tailoring as such, learned Tribunal below ought to have awarded a reasonable sum on account of loss of income, past and future, but in the instant case, learned Tribunal below has not awarded even a single penny to the claimant on this count and as such impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Gupta, further contended that the evidence led on record by claimant in the shape of MLC’s as well as bills clearly suggests that the claimant spent amount much more than the awarded amount. Lastly Mr. Gupta, contended that the claimant successfully proved on record that her monthly income from her profession was Rs.20,000/- as such, learned Tribunal below ought to have awarded reasonable amount to her on account of loss of income. 5. Mr. Pawan K. Gautam, learned vice counsel representing respondents No.1, 3 and 4 supported the impugned award and contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award and same deserves to be upheld. 5. Mr. Pawan K. Gautam, learned vice counsel representing respondents No.1, 3 and 4 supported the impugned award and contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award and same deserves to be upheld. While referring to the evidence adduced on record, Mr. Pawan K. Gautam contended that the claimant was unable to prove on record that at the time of accident, she was earning more than Rs. 20,000/- per month and as such, learned Tribunal below rightly has not awarded any amount on account of loss of income, past and future. While inviting attention of this Court to the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below, Mr. Gautam contended that all the damages claimed by claimant under pecuniary damages stand duly awarded to her as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award and same deserves to be upheld. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. Before ascertaining correctness of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties vis-à-vis impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below, it may be noticed that the respondents have not laid any challenge to the impugned award and as such, same has attained finality against them. 8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, learned Tribunal below has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 as such, respondent No.1 being employer is liable to pay the compensation alongwith respondent No. 2. 9. By way of instant appeal, challenge has been laid to the quantum of amount awarded by the learned Tribunal below, whereby learned Tribunal below has only awarded a sum of Rs.47,626/- to the claimant on account of medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet charges, transportation charges and, pain and suffering. 10. It emerges from the evidence adduced on record by the claimant that claimant, with a view to substantiate her claim adduced documents such as MLC, Ext. PA, Bills, Exts. PB to PG, treatment summary, Ext. PH, admission slip Ext. PJ, bills Exts. PK to PX, discharge card Ext. PO, X-ray form Ext. PP and bus ticket Ext. PZ. Apart from above, claimant also filed affidavit Ext. PW-1/A, reiterating all the averments contained in the claim petition. PA, Bills, Exts. PB to PG, treatment summary, Ext. PH, admission slip Ext. PJ, bills Exts. PK to PX, discharge card Ext. PO, X-ray form Ext. PP and bus ticket Ext. PZ. Apart from above, claimant also filed affidavit Ext. PW-1/A, reiterating all the averments contained in the claim petition. Claimant claimed that she was a tailor by profession and was running a tailoring shop at Chandigarh and further that her monthly income was Rs. 20,000/-. Since the factum with regard to accident as well as rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2 is not in dispute, statement made by claimant with regard to that aspect of matter needs not to be considered at this stage, rather, this Court deems it proper only to peruse the evidence, if any, led on record by the claimant to substantiate her claim that she incurred an expenditure of Rs.30,000/- on her treatment including taxi and attendant charges. Claimant stated before the learned Tribunal below that she incurred expenditure of Rs.30,000/- on her treatment including taxi charges and attendant charges, which statement of the claimant is substantiated by documentary evidence taken note herein above. 11. Though, in the case at hand, claimant claimed that she also suffered agony of pain, mental torture and suffered loss of income and loss of amenities of life, but, interestingly, in the case at hand, claimant failed to annex any certificate of tailoring alongwith the petition, rather, in her cross-examination, she categorically admitted that she has not annexed certificate of tailoring and she has learnt the tailoring work from the wife of her brother (sister-in-law), but again, petitioner has chosen not to examine her sister-in-law in support of her aforesaid contention. Bare perusal of impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below suggests that the entire claim as set up by claimant with regard to the expenditure incurred by her on her treatment, stands awarded to her i.e. Rs. 4,126 on account of medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- on account of attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/- on account of special diet charges and Rs. 13,500/- on account of transportation charges and an addition sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering. 12. 4,126 on account of medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- on account of attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/- on account of special diet charges and Rs. 13,500/- on account of transportation charges and an addition sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering. 12. After having carefully perused evidence adduced on record, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioner that the petitioner successfully proved that at the time of accident, claimant was earning Rs. 20,000/- from the profession of tailoring. Claimant in support of her aforesaid claim has led no evidence. Neither the registration certificate, if any, of the shop allegedly being run by the claimant has been adduced on record nor any tailoring certificate issued by some vocational institute has been adduced on record enabling learned Tribunal below to consider and decide the prayer of the claimant for award of compensation on account of loss of income. Though, in the instant case, claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of loss of income, but as has been noticed herein above, no evidence is led on record by the claimant to prove that she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from her occupation as tailor at the time of accident. 13. Though having carefully perused the evidence available on record vis-à-vis impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below, this Court finds no reason to differ with the findings returned by the learned Tribunal below but, taking note of the injury suffered by claimant in the accident and physical and mental pain suffered by her, this Court is of the view that amount awarded by the learned Tribunal below on account of pain and suffering i.e. Rs. 10,000/- is on lower side, as such, deems it fit to enhance the same to Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to Rs. 20,000/- on account of pain and suffering. Rest of the award is upheld. Needless to say that the claimant shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization. 14. The award stands modified to the extent as stated above. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.