Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And ... vs Hargobind Singh Son Of Sh. Kartar Singh ... on 7 February, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.219 of 1994 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.219 of 1994
Date of Decision.07.02.2013
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another .....Appellants
Versus
Hargobind Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh and others .......Respondents
2. FAO No.375 of 1994
Hargobind Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh .....Appellant
Versus
Shri Jeet Singh son of Shri Mohan Singh and others .......Respondents
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
for the insurance company-respondent No.5.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. Both the appeals are connected and the appeal by the insurance company in FAO No.219 of 1994 addresses the issue of negligence and quantum, while the appeal by the claimant in FAO No.375 of 1994 is for enhancement of claim for compensation. The claimant was a bank employee and he had remained on leave from 30.07.1990 to 02.11.1990. He had given evidence to the effect that he had availed of earned leave during the said period. This period included FAO No.219 of 1994 -2- a period of seven days in hospital as in patient. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal provided for the salary that could have been availed by him later by encashment of his leave and provided the entire period of leave as a resultant loss of income itself at ` 19,250/-. Towards medicines, hospital charges, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, the Tribunal provided for ` 20,000/-. It also awarded ` 20,000/- towards pain and suffering and added a further sum of ` 20,000/- for the disability caused.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would plead that it was a case of head on collision between a Swaraj Mazda vehicle in which the claimant was travelling and the insured's truck. According to him in a case of head on collision in the middle of the road, the liability must have been apportioned equally to the driver of the Swaraj Mazda as well as the driver of the truck. In this case, however, the Tribunal cast the liability wholly on the driver of the truck as responsible for the accident in view of the fact that the driver of Swaraj Mazda had examined himself and had given evidence attributing the negligence only to the driver of the truck. The driver of the truck, however, did not give evidence to contradict the petitioner's version. The counsel would also argue that the DDR, which was originally entered makes out a case of negligent driving of the driver of Swaraj Mazda. I cannot find any error in approach of the Tribunal in casting the liability on the driver of the truck particularly when an evidence given directly against him went uncontroverted at the trial before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is entitled to take independent view on the basis of evidence brought before it and the particulars in DDR themselves cannot be said FAO No.219 of 1994 -3- to be conclusive. If the Tribunal, therefore, found that the driver of the truck was responsible for the accident, I will not find any reason to modify the finding.
3. As regards the quantum, every head of claim has been, in my view, appropriately answered. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant, however, would argue that for fracture of both legs where the person had been hospitalized for a week and he had also been on leave for nearly three months, provision for permanent disability only at ` 20,000/- is grossly low. An assessment to loss of amenity or permanent disability is in some way subjective and unless the disability itself is such as to impact seriously the earning skills, the amount awarded can only be with reference to the actual percentage of disability, which is assessed. We have come by various approaches from Courts allowing for compensation at the rate of ` 1,000/- to ` 2000/- per percentage. There is no scientific approach in such an assessment and if the Tribunal has assessed a compensation of ` 20,000/- for permanent disability, I do not think that there is any scope for modification. The overall compensation as determined by the Tribunal accords with what is just and I find no reason to interfere with the same. The awards are maintained in full and both the appeals are dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 07, 2013 Pankaj*