Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lajpat Rai vs Karnail Singh And Ors. on 3 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: I(1988)ACC37
JUDGMENT Gokal Chand Mital, J.
1. On 16-7-1979 at about 6 30 P.M. Dav Raj was driving Rajdoot Motorcycle on which Kanwar Bhan was a pillion rider. When they were near the gate of the Food Corporation of India Godown situate on the Sirhind Patiala road within the town of Patiala, truck No. PUV-3140 driven by Karnail Singh owned by Sardara Singh Fauji, struck the motorcycle as a result of which Dev Raj died at the spot and Kanwar Bhan received serious injuries on the leg. Kanwar Bhan filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to claim rupees one lac as compensation for the injuries etc. and the widow and parents of Dev Raj deceased filed separate application to claim Rs. 2-1/2 lacs. As both these applications arose out of one and the same accident, they were consolidated and tried together.
2. While the claimants put the blame on the truck driver the truck driver put the blame on the driver of the motor cycle. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed.
(1) Whether Dev Raj deceased died and Kanwar Bhan was injured on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUV-3140 by Karnail Singh respondent ? (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled in both the claim petitions and from whom ? (3) Relief.
3. On the evidence led in this case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 21-4-1982, awarded Rs. 8000/- to the parents of the deceased and Rs. 20,000/- to the widow of the deceased by way of compromise between her and the insurance company; and Rs. 220007- to Kanwar Bhan injured, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Since the truck was insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation. Kanwar Bhan has filed F.A.O. No. 563 of 1982 and the parents of the deceased have filed F.A.O. No. 446 of 1982, to claim further enhancement. Since both these appeals arise out of one and the same award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. First adverting to the appeal of the parents of the deceased, the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month as stated by the widow and mother of the deceased respectively. When the father of the deceased would have become old and infirm and would not have been able to earn his son would have maintained him and his wife (mother). Hence, I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 8,000/- awarded to the parents of the deceased by the Tribunal is much too less. Therefore, on the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if Rs. 20,000/- are awarded to the parents of the deceased and I order accordingly.
5. Adverting to the other appeal filed by the injured, he was working as an Assistant Grade IF in the office of the Food Cbrporation of India, Patiala, and was drawing Rs. 760/- per month as his salary. Dr. N.D. Aggarwal of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, examined Kanwar Bhan injured the same evening and found on X-ray examination subtrochantric fracture of left femur, dislocation of M.P. joint of left foot and fracture of the left fibula. The injured was operated upon and his left foot and femur were put in plaster. He had to be re-admitted in the hospital on 20-8-1979 and was discharged on 24-8-1979. This has come in the evidence of Dr. N.D. Aggarwal who appeared as A.W. 13. Dr. Rajinder Singh Thind (A.W. 9), Head of the Department of Plastic Surgery, Medical College, Patiala, stated that he admitted Kanwar Bhan thrice for the crushed injuries on his left foot with fracture of the fibula and foot bones. He performed operations on him and stated that there was a permanent deformity of the left foot leading to a limp which necessitated walking with a stick. When the injured appeared as a witness before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Tribunal gave a note that his left foot appeared to be crushed and twisted If such a serious injury of permanent nature causing partial disability and permanent deformity is caused, in my opinion the award of Rs. 22,000/- by the Tribunal is far too less. In this view of the matter I consider that Rs. 35,000/- would be the reasonable compensation on the peculiar facts of this case on all counts.
6. During the hearing of the appeals before vacations, I had formed the tentative view to award the aforesaid amounts of compensation and the counsel for the Insurance Company had sought time to persuade the Company to agree to the Court suggestion. Shri Munishwar Puri appearing for the Insurance company has stated at the bar that the Company has agreed to the Court suggestion and there is no objection in awarding the said amounts subject to the condition that no interest should be levied on the increased amount of compensation, because the Insurance Company has already paid the amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest.
7. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals (F.A.O. Nos. 446 and 563 of 1982) are allowed and in F A.O. No. 446 of 1982, the parents of the deceased are allowed Rs. 20,000/- instead of Rs. 8,000/-; and in F.A.O. No. 563 of 1982, the compensation payable to the injured is increased from Rs. 22,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-. In case the amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest has already been paid, then the enhanced amount be paid to the claimants by sending a payee's account draft to them directly or by handing it over to their counsel, Shri R.L. Sharma, in the name of his clients, on or before 15-10-1987. If the enhanced amount is not sent by registered post by 15-10-1987 or given to the counsel for the claimants, the claimants would be entitled to recover the enhanced amount with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the application till realisation along-with costs of the applied.