Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh vs Unknown on 20 December, 2011
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No. 3308 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 3308 of 2008
Date of decision 20.12.2011
Jatinder Singh Appellant
v.
Darshan Singh etc. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the respondents
....
JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J.
The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-
appellant against the Award dated 6.5.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short the Tribunal).
The claimant Jatinder Singh had filed claim petition ( MACT No. 29 of 12.2.2001) under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Ld. Tribunal for grant of compensation.
The brief facts of the case are that on 1.10.2000, Jatinder Singh, the claimant and his father Jit Singh were going on cycles to Khanna from their village Rahon, Distt. Ludhiana. At 5 p.m., when they crossed Model Town Khanna and reached near Bhangoo clinic at Samrala Road, a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. PB-26A-2116 came from behind and struck on the person of Jatinder Singh. He fell down and received grievous injuries. FIR No. 153 dated 4.10.2000 was registered at Police Station, City Khanna. As per the claimant he was doing the business of FAO No. 3308 of 2008 2 cattle feed and earning Rs. 3000/- per month. He remained admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala from 1.10.2000 to 26.10.2000, and thereafter from 22.1.2001 to 6.2.2001, and spent huge amount on his treatment.
Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2, filed written statement. They denied all the averments made in the claim petition. It is submitted that respondent No.2 is not the exclusive owner of the tractor-trolley and respondent No.2A is the joint owner.
In the written statement filed by Respondent No.2A, he denied all the averments of the claimant. It was submitted that respondent No.1 Darshan Singh was holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.
Respondent No.3, in its written statement resisted the claim and took a stand that the driver of the tractor-trolley was not having a valid and effective driving licence.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the claimant received injuries in the accident with tractor trolley number PB-26A-2116 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Darshan Singh? OPA
2. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid licence at the time of accident? OPR3.
3. To what amount and from whom the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? OPA
4. Relief.
After appreciation of entire evidence produced on record, the Ld. Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant by observing FAO No. 3308 of 2008 3 that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident with the offending vehicle, driven by respondent No.1, and owned jointly by respondent No. 2 and 2A at the time, date, place and in the manner projected by him.
Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the the claimant, as the learned counsel for respondent No.3 conceded before the Ld. Tribunal that the respondent No. 1 was possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.
While deciding Issue No. 3, the Ld. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- as compensation to the claimant and all the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount.
Aggrieved against the findings of the Ld. Tribunal, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Ld. Tribunal is inadequate and prays that the same be enhanced as per terms of the claim petition.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Ld. Tribunal, whereas from the testimony of the claimant-appellant, it is established that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor-trolley. He further contended that the Ld. Tribunal erred in determining the earnings of the claimant at Rs. 15,000/- per year as per section 163-A of the Act, whereas the claim petition was filed under section 166 of the Act. Ld. Tribunal erred in not taking the cognizance of the practical aspect of the matter that even a labourer earns Rs. 250/- per day in the State of Punjab. He submitted that the income of the claimant assessed by the Ld. Tribunal is on the lower side and the Ld. Tribunal should have assessed the income as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act prevalent in the State of FAO No. 3308 of 2008 4 Punjab at the relevant time. He submitted that the appellant who was a young energetic young man before the accident has now been rendered in vegetative state and has been deprived of all the happiness and other amenities of life including marriage. Learned counsel referred to the statement of PW 12, Dr. Avtar Singh Brar, Civil Hospital, Sahnewal, who stated that he was member of the Board, constituted for assessment of the disability of the claimant. As per certificate Ex. PW12/A, issued to the claimant after his medical check up, his disability was found to be 100%, as he suffered a fracture and paraplegia of both the lower limbs.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has taken into consideration all the factors and awarded just and adequate compensation to the appellant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file.
A perusal of the record shows that appellant was 19 years young boy at the time of accident. He has suffered a fracture and paraplegia of both the lower limbs and the disability was assessed as 70 percent. He has become totally disabled and unable to move without support or help. The Ld. Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 1250/- per month treating him to be a non earning person. As per the Notification issued by the Govt.of Punjab, Labour Deptt on 1-9-2000, the income of a labourer was Rs. 1844/- per month.
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the appellant was calculated on the lower side by the Ld. Tribunal. He was awarded Rs. 15000/- for attendant charges.
The appellant suffered paralysis of both the lower limbs as is FAO No. 3308 of 2008 5 clear from the statement of PW11, Dr. N.K.Singla, he suffered disability to the extent of 70 percent. He is unable to carry out his daily routine works without the assistance of an attendant. For him, each passing day would be a struggle and a painful experience. He is rendered dependent for rest of his life. The life of the appellant has been totally ruined and instead of being an asset to the family and a contributory member to the Society, he has become a liability upon both. At the time of accident the age of appellant was 19 years and the normal life expectancy is about 70 years. In the circumstances, he would remain dependent for another five decades. He has been deprived of enjoyment of life on account of paraplegia of the lower limb suffered by him. The normal life expectancy is about 70 years. It means the appellant would remain dependent for 50 years of his life and for this, an attendant is required to look after him for rest of the life. Nowadays, if an attendant is to be engaged, he is to be paid as per the wages determined under the Minimum Wages Act for the skilled labour.
In view of the above, this Court feels that appellant is entitled to Rs. 2 lacs in lump sum as attendant charges. The appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.2 lacs within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal, till its realisation. The Award passed by the Ld. Tribunal is modified to the above extent.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 20.12.2011 MS