IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.1297 of 1995 Date of Decision : March 12, 2010 M/s Gargi Overseas Private Limited, Karnal and another .....Appellants Versus Puran Singh alias Puran Chand and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate for Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. T.P.S. MANN, J. The instant appeal filed by the registered owners of two tractors is directed against the judgment dated 18.1.1995 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Puran Singh @ Puran Chand was accepted by awarding him a sum of Rs.1,34,400/- as compensation on account of injuries received by him. From the same judgment, claimant Puran Singh @ Puran Chand has also filed FAO No.1030 of 1995 wherein he has sought enhancement of amount of compensation. As both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of together by a common order. F.A.O. No.1297 of 1995 -2- In the claim petition preferred by Puran Singh @ Puran Chand, hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant', it was averred that he was directed by his employer M/s Gargi Overseas Limited to tow two tractors, one owned by his employer and the other owned by Jeet Singh as the tractor owned by his employer was stuck in the mud in the premises of its Rice Sheller. The tractor owned by the employer of the claimant was being driven by Shamsher Singh whereas Jeet Singh was on the steering wheel of his own tractor. Shamsher Singh put his tractor in reverse gear and in that process the claimant came in between both the tractors and received injuries on his left leg. As a result, the leg had to be ultimately amputated. The incident was witnessed by Om Parkash on whose statement FIR No.351 was registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal against Shamsher Singh. As the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the drivers of both the tractors and the claimant had to suffer amputation of his left leg, he filed the claim petition for awarding him a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. While opposing the claim petition, Shamsher Singh, driver of the tractor belonging to M/s Gargi Overseas Limited, pleaded that neither he was on the steering wheel of the said tractor nor the accident had taken place in his presence. M/s Gargi Overseas Limited averred in its written statement that its tractor was stuck in the mud and Jeet Singh offered his services to move the same. Said Jeet Singh brought his tractor and when he put his tractor in reverse gear in order to tow the F.A.O. No.1297 of 1995 -3- stranded tractor of the Company with his tractor, the claimant, who was not in the service of the Company and was rather a spectator, came in between both the tractors. The accident took place on account of negligence of the claimant himself and not due to the negligence of Shamsher Singh or Jeet Singh. Jeet Singh also filed a separate written statement wherein he denied having caused any accident. He denied that he went to the Rice Sheller owned by M/s Gargi Overseas Limited. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident dated 30.8.1990 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar, Karnal resulting into the injuries to the claimant was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing engine No.391038/895701, Chasis No.89311065, make Swaraj 735, driven by respondent No.1? OPP 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation on account of the injuries, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPR 4. Whether the claimant has absolutely no cause of action? OPR 5. Whether the claim petition is hopelessly time barred? OPR F.A.O. No.1297 of 1995 -4- 6. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 7. Whether the tractor in question was being driven by an unauthorised person, if so its effect ? OPR 8. Relief. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place on account of the negligent driving of the two tractors driven by Shamsher Singh and Jeet Singh. Accordingly, the claimant was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,34,400/- alongwith costs and interest @ 12% per annum. The claimant was held entitled to recover half of the amount of compensation from Shamsher Singh and M/s Gargi Overseas Limited jointly and severally and remaining half from Jeet Singh. On behalf of M/s Gargi Overseas Limited and Jeet Singh, respective owners of the two tractors, it has been submitted that the claimant did not adduce any evidence to prove his presence at the private premises of M/s Gargi Overseas Limited where the accident had allegedly taken place. The claimant was neither the licencee, to be present at the private premises of the Company, nor had any interest whatsoever in the moving of the tractor out of the mud. Therefore, the claimant had no cause of action whatsoever against the appellants. In addition, it has been submitted that the amount of compensation F.A.O. No.1297 of 1995 -5- awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and needed to be reduced. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the claimant that he was employed by M/s Gargi Overseas Limited and for that reason he was present at the time of the accident. When Shamsher Singh, driver of the tractor belonging to the Company, put his tractor in reverse gear, the claimant came in between both the tractors and received injuries on his left leg. In addition, it has been submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is already inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. In support of his claim petition, the claimant had examined himself as PW2 and Mam Chand as PW3. The claimant had deposed that on the day of the accident, he was working as a labourer in the Rice Sheller owned by M/s Gargi Overseas Limited and as its tractor got stranded in the mud, another tractor owned by Jeet Singh was brought to move the same. When the two drivers of the tractors put their respective tractors in reverse gear, the claimant came in between the tractors as a result of which, he received injuries on his left leg which had to be ultimately amputated. His version was duly corroborated by Mam Chand PW3. Both of them were thoroughly cross-examined but nothing substantial could be elicited to discredit their testimonies. Jeet Singh, owner-cum-driver of the second tractor, whose help was sought in removing the tractor of the Company from out of the mud, appeared as RW1 and stated that he did not own any tractor on the F.A.O. No.1297 of 1995 -6- date of the accident. In fact, the tractor which he owned stood sold earlier. He denied that he had ever taken any tractor to the Rice Sheller which was owned by him but he had given it on lease to M/s Gargi Overseas Limited. Shamsher Singh, who was allegedly on the steering wheel of the tractor belonging to M/s Gargi Overseas Limited appeared as RW2 and deposed that he had never driven the said tractor nor he knew driving. He admitted that a criminal case stood registered against him which was pending. Despite the same, he had not moved any application or representation to the high-ups in the police Department against registration of false case against him. Rakesh Kumar RW3, who worked as a Supervisor with M/s Gargi Overseas Limited, had deposed that the tractor owned by his employer got stranded in the mud and another tractor was brought to pull out the same. In the meanwhile, the claimant came from inside and got struck in between the tractors. The occurrence was witnessed by him while sitting in his office of Rice Sheller. However, he had to admit in his cross-examination that the office of the Rice Sheller was at a distance of 2 acres from the spot where the tractor was stranded whereas the building of Rice Sheller at a distance of 4 acres and at the time of the accident, he was in the building of Rice Sheller. Rajinder Singh RW4 had deposed that he was working as driver with M/s Gargi Overseas Limited. At the time of the accident he F.A.O. No.1297 of 1995 -7- had gone to bring an iron rod for towing the tractors. On return, he learnt that the tractor of one Jeet Singh was there and a person had received injuries. He also stated that he had not witnessed the occurrence. In cross-examination, he admitted that it was Shamsher Singh, who was on the steering wheel of the tractor of his employer when it got stranded. The statements of the aforementioned witnesses were thoroughly appreciated by the learned Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of negligent driving of the two tractors by Shamsher Singh and Jeet Singh. This Court has also scanned the entire evidence threadbare and, thereafter, come to a conclusion that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No.1 requires affirmation. As regards compensation amount, the Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- for permanent disability, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment and amenities of life as the claimant was 19 years old, who could not physically die because of his survival. In addition, Rs.44,400/- was awarded on account of loss of earnings and Rs.15,000/- on account of pecuniary loss and expenditure upto the date of trial. The said amount of Rs.15,000/- included medication, attendant, transportation, special diet, etc. After going through the testimonies of PW5 Dr. Ashok F.A.O. No.1297 of 1995 -8- Kumar Gupta and PW4 Dr. Ved Parkash Gupta as well as law laid down in the case of Chander Kumar Pahwa V. State of Haryana and others, 1985 ACJ 500, the Court is of the view that no case is made out for either reducing or enhancing the amount of Rs.75,000/- awarded to the claimant for permanent disability, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment and amenities of life as well as the amount of Rs.15,000/- for pecuniary loss and expenditure. However, the amount of Rs.44,400/- awarded to the claimant on account of loss of earnings is grossly inadequate. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimant was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. However, the stand of the claimant that he was unable to do any work in future was not accepted for the reason that though his efficiency to work would decrease yet not to that an extent that he would not be able to sit on a machine and carry on work. Accordingly, partial loss of earnings was assessed at the reduced rate of Rs.200/- per month. The claimant had suffered disability to the extent of 65%. His left leg below the knee stood amputated. Under these circumstances, the loss of earnings of Rs.1,000/- per month could not have been scaled down to Rs.200/- per month. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and reasonable to assess the loss of earnings at the reduced rate of Rs.500/- per month or Rs.6,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 16, as done by the Tribunal earlier, the loss of earnings after first six months of the accident is assessed at Rs.96,000/-. In addition, the amount of Rs.6,000/- already granted by the Tribunal to the claimant at the rate of F.A.O. No.1297 of 1995 -9- Rs.1,000/- per month for the first six months as he would not have been in a position to work during the said period has also to be granted. In all, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.1,02,000/- under the head loss of earnings. The amounts of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.15,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of permanent disability and pecuniary loss, respectively, when added to the amount of Rs.1,02,000/- under the head 'loss of earnings' make the claimant entitled to receive Rs.1,92,000/- as global compensation on account of his injuries. Resultantly, the compensation of Rs.1,34,400/- awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,92,000/-. The claimant shall also be entitled to costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition uptil the recovery of Rs.1,34,400/- and @ 9% on the enhanced amount of Rs.57,600/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual payment. The claimant is entitled to recover half of the amount of compensation from Shamsher Singh and M/s Gargi Overseas Limited jointly and severally and the remaining half amount from Jeet Singh. F.A.O.No.1297 of 1995 is, accordingly, dismissed whereas F.A.O. No.1030 of 1995 is allowed to the extent indicated above. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 12, 2010 JUDGE satish