Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh vs Harbhajan Singh And Ors. on 12 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996ACJ1170, (1995)111PLR214
Author: Sarojnei Saksena
Bench: Sarojnei Saksena
JUDGMENT Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Claimant Hardip Singh has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him in Motor Accident Case No. 5 of 1987, decided on 31.1.1990 by Shri J.P. Gupta, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur.
2. In this appeal, these facts are not disputed that on 18.5.1987 at about 7.00 P.M. Balwant Singh was going on a Scooter from Amargarh to village Bagrian. Claimant Hardip Singh was sitting on the pillion. Oil Tanker No. PBP-6767 driven by respondent Harbhajan Singh at a very high speed rashly and negligently struck against the scooter, as a result of which Balwant Singh died on the spot and Hardip Singh sustained multiple injures. Hardip Singh filed claim petition claimanting Rs. 4 lacs as compensation. Legal heirs of Balwant Singh also filed a claim petition. Both these petitions were decided by the aforesaid judgment.
3. The respondents denied the allegations made in the claim petition. Insurance company raised additional plea that under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, its liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The parties adduced evidence. The tribunal held that the petitioner-appellant sustained multiple injuries in this accident. He was hospitalised operated upon also as detailed in Para 17 of the impugned award. The tribunal has awarded Rs. one lac as compensation to the appellant.
4. The appellant's learned counsel submitted that the tribunal has not assessed the compensation properly. Evidence adduced by the petitioner is not scanned minutely. He submitted that Rs. 4 lacs should have been awarded to the appellant as compensation.
5. During the arguments, it was not disputed that in this accident both the legs of the claimants were fractured. Nailing and bone grafting was done, he was hospitalised from 20.5.1987 to 26.6.1987. Thereafter, till 6.11.1987 he was regularly going to the hospital for physiotherapy and again he was admitted in the hospital on 6.11.1987 and was discharged on 23.11.1987 after undergoing second operation. Thus, he was admitted in the hospital for 54 days. There is shortening of 1 cm in his right leg.
6. Appellant' has examined AW 8 Hari Saran to prove that from June 1987 he was taking the claimant through his taxi from Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, to C.M.C. Hospital. He was charging Rs. 100/- per day and Rs. 50/- extra for petrol though the tribunal has commented on his statement and found him not wholly reliable, still it has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for transportation and rent. The reason assigned by the Claims Tribunal for not awarding the transportation charges on the aforesaid rate are well founded and need no interference.
7. The appellant examined Jaswinder Singh AW9 to prove that from July, 1987 to April 1988, he was inducted as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- P.M. in house owned by this witness at Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. The Tribunal has not believed this witness to the extent of payment of Rs. 1000/- P.M. as rent for the said house. It has clubbed this head with expenses suffered on transportation and under both these heads, it has awarded Rs. 10,000/-. Surprisingly, no receipt was obtained from this witness for payment of rent. Even the name of the tenant was not got entered with the Municipal Corporation. According to me, the tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 10,000/- under both these heads to the appellant. The appellant has submitted an inflated claim dividing it on various heads as enumerated in the petition.
8. AWs 10 and 11 were examined to prove that they worked as attendants to the appellant during this period and they were paid Rs. 700/- P.M. each by the appellant. Pritam Singh AW is not related to the appellant. He owns agricultural land also but still leaving his agricultural land, he went to attend on the appellant when his mother and one brother were also attending him. No receipt was ever issued by these witnesses. Conversely, Harinder Singh AW 11 has stated that nobody else other than he and Pritam Singh attended the appellant. According to him, the appellant's relatives used to come and go. The trial Court has awarded Rs. 5,000/-under this head. It needs no interference.
9. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of agricultural income. The court has rightly held that infact, the appellant has failed to prove that he has suffered a loss so far as his income from agriculture is concerned because his Khata is joint with his brothers and father and there is no evidence that the land falling to his share was not cultivated during this period and it did not yield any crop. According to me, even this amount is rightly assessed.
10. Under head (7), the claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering, loss of pleasures of life and deformity in leg. According to me, this compensation is not properly awarded. In Santokh Singh v. Ajay Diwan, 1988 A.CJ. 617, the injured was hospitalised for 3 months. He had permanent physical disability between 5 to 20 per cent. There was impairment of brain function also with loss of memory and liplopia. He was a partner in a contractor's firm. A single Bench of this Court awarded Rs. 1,75,000/- as general damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities of life and disabilities and loss of earning capacity. In Mangal Kishore Kaul v. Union of India, (1989-1) 95 P.L.R. 576, the injured a student suffered disability to the extent of 80 per cent, leg was shortened by two inches and was hospitalised for three months. A compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded to him for pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/- were awarded for shortening of leg and for disability of 80 percent Rs. 40,000/- were awarded. In Virinder Kumar Pandit v. M/s. Govind Rice Factory, Samana Mandi, (1990-2) 98 P.L.R. 116, the injured a professor aged 43 years, suffered 20 per cent disability, leg was shortened by 1/1/2 inches and Rs.76,000/- were awarded for pain and suffering and permanent disability.
11. Respondents' learned counsel relied on Hans Raj and Ors. v. Neelam Chopra, (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 92 wherein the injured earning Rs. 380/- P.M. remained on leave for ten months, suffered shortening of leg by one inch and permanent disabilities curtailed her enjoyment of life, awarded amount was reduced from Rs. one lac to Rs. 50,000/-. He also relied on Gurmukh Singh v. Gopi Ram and Anr., 1994 A.C.J. 1142 (Delhi) wherein the total compensation of Rs. 33,000/- was awarded which was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by Delhi High Court.
12. No authority on the amount of compensation lays down a rule of law. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospectus, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospectus. In this case, the claims, tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,000/- for pain and sufferings, loss of pleasures of life and deformity of leg and Rs. 10,000/- on account of diminished future prospectus. According to me,, it needs interference. As mentioned above, the appellant under went two operations. Nailing and bone grafting was done. His both legs were fractured. He remained in hospital for 54 lays. There is shortening of right leg by half cm. In future also, he is required to under operations to get the nailing removed. Apparently, during all this period, he must have suffered a lot. According to me, the appellant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of pleasure of life and Rs. 15,000/-on account of deformity in leg and for diminished future prospectus, he is entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- as compensation.
13. The Claims Tribunal has not considered that in future also, he is required to spend money for operations which are required to get the nailing removed. In my view, he is entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- under this head as well. Thus, I find that the appellant is entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- from the respondents.
14. No other point is pressed before me.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 45,000/-. The appellant is entitled to recover Rs. 1,45,000/- as compensation from the respondents jointly and severally, with interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realisation. No order as to costs.