IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1427 of 1991(O&M) Date of decision:03.02.2011 Arjan Jha ....Appellant versus Mukesh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The claimant was a pedestrian and while he was crossing the road on cycle, the respondent's vehicle coming from the opposite direction dashed against him and by the impact, he broke through the glass of the car and suffered injuries in his shoulder and leg. The accident was said to have taken place at 4:15 PM and FIR had been registered at the instance of one Kishan Chand at 5:30 PM. The FIR made a specific reference about the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.DNC-7113 that the accident had taken place at the time and place specified by the petitioner. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner's involvement in FAO No.1427 of 1991(O&M) - 2 - the accident by observing that there had been a discrepancy between the time as specified in the petition as the time of accident at 4:15 AM, while in the evidence, he stated that the accident had taken place at 4:15 PM. The Tribunal also made reference to the fact that the author of the FIR had not been examined. 2. The finding of the Tribunal is wholly incorrect. The petition as well as the evidence suggests that he was going to his factory and he has also referred to the fact that several persons were taking a right turn and that a vehicle coming at a distance, struck against him. The reference to his going to a factory and several persons being present at that time surely suggests that it must have been taken place only in the evening and not during the wee hours of the morning. However, the FIR itself had been lodged immediately and it was also stated by him that the wind shield of the car had been damaged and the driver was prosecuted in a criminal case. This was sufficient for a Tribunal to hold the involvement of the vehicle. I set aside the finding that the claimant had not established the accident involving the respondent's vehicle. 3. As regards the claim to damages for the injuries, Dr. K.L Gupta, Orthopaedic Surgeon, had stated that he was admitted in his clinic on 23.11.1989 with a fracture of the right clavicle and the fracture of both bones of the right leg. A conservative treatment of reduction of the fracture by application of plaster had been done and it was stated that the plaster was removed on 21.01.1990. The doctor also stated that there was no permanent deformity to the petitioner. There was evidence at the instance of the petitioner himself that soon after the accident, he had FAO No.1427 of 1991(O&M) - 3 - been removed to B.K.Hospital, Faridabad where he remained admitted for three days and later admitted in Veero Devi Hospital and finally in ESI hospital. Though he had stated that he had spent about Rs.25,000/30,000 on his treatment, special diet, transportation etc., he did not produce any medical bills for the same. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation although it had dismissed the claim petition and observed that he should have incurred Rs.3,000/- towards medicines and special diet, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.2,000/- for loss of income. Even at the time of trial, the petitioner had given a certificate from his employer that his salary was Rs.1,250/- and he remained on leave without pay from 23.11.1989 to 18.05.1990. This document was, however, not received in evidence perhaps by the fact that no attendants of the witnesses was secured by the claimant. Being a summary proceeding, I would take this certificate as sufficient to corroborate his own version that he had remained without going to his place of employment for nearly 6 months. I will, therefore, provide Rs.7,500/- towards loss of income and retain the other components of damages as assessed by the Tribunal. On the whole, therefore, the total amount of compensation that will become payable would be Rs.22,500/- and the amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.02.2011 sanjeev