Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narenderjit Singh Tiwana vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 February, 2012
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
FAO No.1211 of 1991 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1211 of 1991
Date of decision 08.02.2012.
Narenderjit Singh Tiwana
...... Appellant.
versus
State of Haryana and others
...... Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Maharaj Baksh Singh Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Amit Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
K.C.PURI. J.
Appellant-Narenderjit Singh Tiwana has directed the present appeal against the award dated 5.6.1991 passed by Shri Hari Ram, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind vide which the claimant were awarded compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/- along with 12% interest FAO No.1211 of 1991 2 from the date of petition till the payment.
2. Briefly stated claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of receiving injuries in a motor vehicular accident.
3. The claim set up by the claimants is that on 29.11.1989 he was to go to Chandigarh and therefore, he boarded Bus No.HNB-2789 from Hisar at about 6.30a.m., and when he reached near Sacha Khera in between Danoda and Narwan on Hissar Chandigarh road at about 7.30 a.m. Then a cyclist came from the opposite direction. The driver of the bus who was on the right side after hitting the cyclist lost control and struck against a tree on the road side. At that time bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver which resulted in this accident. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,85,000/-.
4. On put to notice respondents appeared and respondent No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement and raised preliminary objections that the petitioner has no cause of action because no such accident was caused by the bus on the alleged day and that the petition is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it is alleged that no criminal case was registered by the claimant against them. Denying other averments respondent Nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Respondents No.3 and 4 also denied the claim of the claimant.
6. Following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HNB-2789 by respondent No.2 resulting in injuries to the petitioner ? OPP FAO No.1211 of 1991 3
2. To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled to, if so from whom and in what proportionate ? ?OPP
3. Whether the delay in filing this petition is liable to be condoned on the grounds alleged in the petition ?
4. Whether this petition against respondent No.2 is not maintainable ?
5. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition ?
6. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ?
7. Whether the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this petition as alleged by respondent No.3. ?
8. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties ?
9. Whether the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the rules of the Insurance Policy ?
10. Whether the liability of the Insurance Company is limited up to Rs.15,000/- only ?
11. Whether the driver of the bus had no valid driving licence at the time of accident, if so to what effect ?
12. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing this petition by his act and conduct ?
13. Relief.
7. The parties have led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. The Tribunal after appraisal of the same, vide Award dated 5.06.1991 granted compensation to the tune of `.15,000/- to the claimant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment of the amount.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award dated 5.06.1991, FAO No.1211 of 1991 4 the claimant has preferred present appeal for enhancement.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.
10. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of `.15,000/- as compensation, the details of which is given as under :-
1. Amount in respect of permanent disability `.5000/-
2. Pain and agony `.3000/-
3. Special Diet `.1000/-
4. Transportation charges `.1000/-
5. Loss of work `.5000/-
Total `.15,000/-
11. The claimant is a lawyer by profession and as per evidence there was fracture of his arm which remains under plaster for three weeks.
As per evidence of Dr.M.L.Kochar, there was fracture of distal radious and distal ulna with diminish sensation in the area of median nurve on the right forearm. There was permanent disability to the extent of 12% of his right forearm. The doctor has further stated that he would be feeling problem in writing. The disability is permanent in nature.
12. As per statement of the appellant there was fracture of his arm and his arm remained under plaster for three weeks. The plaster was again applied and it was removed in the month of March 1989. He has stated that he spent `.20,000/- on his treatment in Kuldeep Nursing Home and thereafter he came to Civil Hospital, Hisar where he was treated by Dr.M.L.Kochar. Another sum of `.15,000/- was spent by him on his treatment. He has further submitted that he has to get two attendants and engaged a driver and was incurring `.1000?- extra which was paid for six months and two attendants at the rate of `.800/- per month. He has to take FAO No.1211 of 1991 5 special diet. He has further stated that he has lost Rs.25,000/- from his profession during one year when he could not attend his work.
13. Keeping in view the whole evidence, in my view the amount granted by the Tribunal is on lower side. The claimant is held entitled to claim the following amount :-
1. Expenses on medicines & treatment etc. `.10,000/-
2. Transportation charges `. 1,000/-
3. Special Diet `. 1000/-
4. Amount in respect of permanent disability `.28,000/-
5. Loss of work `.10,000/-
Total `.50,000/-
14. The enhancement of Rs.35,000/- shall carry the same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization of the compensation amount.
15. The counsel for insurance company is fair enough to concede that since the policy is after the amendment and as such the limit of Rs.15,000/- is not applicable.
16. So, the claim petition is partly accepted.
17. The respondents are directed to pay Rs.35,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
18. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C. PURI ) JUDGE February 08, 2012 sv