Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar Goyal vs Rajasthan State Transport Corporation ... on 4 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: II(1999)ACC498, 2001ACJ194, (1999)123PLR18
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. Appellant sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 2.2.1983. Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence produced on record came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. RPM-1280, belonging to Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, Jaipur by its driver Tara Chand, respondent. Claims Tribunal further noticed that the appellant suffered crush injury on his right foot and it was lacerated wound. The appellant could not attend to this duties for about six and a half month due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The appellant produced in evidence receipts evidencing the amount spent on his treatment in the sum of Rs. 7,309.68, but the Claims Tribunal after coming to the conclusion that the receipts produced in evidence cannot be accepted as the same were not duly proved, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of treatment including purchase of medicines etc.. Claims Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the appellant suffered a loss of Rs. 3,900/ for remaining on leave without pay and thus awarded another sum of Rs. 3,900/- on that account. In other words, the claims tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,900/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, by its award dated 28.8.1985.
2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, appellant filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Neither the appellant nor his counsel put in appearance in the first appeal. Even no one put in appearance on behalf of respondents. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 28.7.1993 by Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. (as his Lordship then was) after observing that the Tribunal awarded reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal at the instance of the claimant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove any permanent disability suffered by him in the accident in question. Learned counsel also submitted that it came in evidence by way of documentary evidence consisting of receipts Exhibit P-4 to P-28 that the appellant spent a sum of Rs. 7,309.68 on his treatment. But the Claims Tribunal restricted the compensation in that behalf to Rs. 3,000/- only without any valid reason and justification. In the end, it was urged that it stood proved on record that the appellant suffered lacerated injuries and remained under treatment for more than six months, but no amount has been awarded for pain and suffering.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the award of the Claims Tribunal and the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to some more account. Appellant while appearing as his own witness stated that he suffered crush injury and it was a lacerated wound. It is clear from the evidence produced by the appellant that he remained admitted in Man Singh Hospital Delhi for one month and due to the injuries and treatment, he could not attend to his duties for about six and a half month. The appellant further stated that he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10%. He produced medical certificate Exhibit PX in that behalf. Appellant also produced in evidence receipts Exhibits P-4 to P-28 evidencing that a sum of Rs. 6,309.68 was spent by him on his treatment. Claims Tribunal, however, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- only, against the amount of Rs. 7,309.68 after observing that the same have not been duly proved by the appellant. Once the receipts were produced and exhibited in evidence and no evidence was produced by the other side to rebut this evidence or to show that the receipts were false or fabricated, there was no justification to disallow the amount indicated in the receipts especially having regard to the fact that the appellant remained under treatment for about two months and could not attend his duties for more than six months. The statement of the appellant that he spent a sum of Rs. 7,309.68 on his treatment, cannot be disbelieved. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 7,309.68 on account of his treatment including the amount spent on medicines etc.
5. On an examination of the award, we further find that no amount has been awarded on account of pain and suffering. Having regard to the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the appellant, and other facts and circumstances as noticed above, we are of the opinion that the appellant is also entitled to some amount on account of pain and suffering. The accident in the present case took place in the year 1983. We, therefore, allow a further amount of Rs. 4,000/-on account of pain and suffering.
6. The total compensation payable to the appellant would thus come to Rs. 15,209.68, which is rounded of to Rs. 15,200/-. The award of the Claims Tribunal is thus modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 15,200/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment minus the amount, if any, already received by him. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.