Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh Wife Of Jarnail Singh And ... vs Balwinder Singh Son Of Anant Singh And ... on 17 January, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.184 of 2012(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.184 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.01.2013
Karnail Singh wife of Jarnail Singh and others.
... Appellants
Versus
Balwinder Singh son of Anant Singh and another.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. KS Chahal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
None for respondent 1.
Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate,
for respondent 2.
*****
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. The appeal is brought through a single adjudication made for three petitioners, who have suffered injuries in a motor accident. The Tribunal must have called upon the petitioners to file independent petitions, so that, the compensation was assessed independently to make it available for execution for each person in case of non-compliance.
2. It is a case of three persons on a motorcycle having been hit by a maruti car coming from behind. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation found that the driver of the FAO No.184 of 2012(O&M) [2] maruti car was guilty of negligent driving and all the same found contributory negligence for the three persons, who were coming on a motorcycle. This finding is clearly erroneous. The Court was not determining an imposition of a fine or offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The three persons travelling on a motorcycle may have been guilty of traffic offence but there is no reason for the Court to make any inference regarding negligence as contributory by the only fact that three persons were going on a motorcycle. This can be explained also by a different experience of a motorcyclist not having a driving licence at all but still coming by an injury in collision with another vehicle. The Courts have held in such a situation that the person, who did not have a driving licence shall not be taken as allowing for common inference of negligence. It is another way of saying that yet another vehicle will not be permitted to take advantage of a traffic offence committed by another person. If the evidence was brought before the Court that the driver of the maruti car was responsible for the accident, the Court could not have without any explanation from the driver of the maruti car itself that the accident took place by any negligent conduct of the motorcyclist also. A finding of contributory negligence is not a matter of conjectural inference in the manner done by the Tribunal but it shall be on the basis of specific evidence. The partial abatement of the FAO No.184 of 2012(O&M) [3] respective claims to the extent of 50% was, therefore, erroneous and I set aside the same.
3. While determining the compensation for injury to the first petitioner, the Court has provided for medical expenses `21,110/- and awarded `750/- for fracture. The first petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 17 days. He ought to have been, therefore, provided for appropriate compensation for pain and suffering, attendant charges, transportation and special diet. I will assess the compensation as `7,50o/- for pain and suffering for fracture and `2,000/- apiece for each of the other heads. There shall be, therefore, an additional amount of `14,250/- over the amount already awarded to the first petitioner. As regards the claim of the second petitioner, the Court has provided `1,796/- being the hospital charges and for medicines. He had been admitted for 4 days. The third petitioner had incurred `922/- for his hospitalization for 4 days. Both of them will have an additional amount of `3,000/- for pain and suffering as well as for dietary charges for staying in the hospital. The entire amount of compensation shall be paid without any abatement over the amounts determined with the additions as provided above for each one of the appellants, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
4. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to FAO No.184 of 2012(O&M) [4] the above extent.
5. The registry shall despatch the copy of the order to the particular Judicial Officer, who delivered the judgment.
17th January, 2013 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE