IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 683 of 1990 Date of Decision : March 5, 2009 Mohinder Lal alias Mohinder Kumar ....Appellant Versus Balwinder Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the claimant against the judgment dated 24.5.1990 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, vide which the claimant was awarded an amount of 3,000/- as compensation on account of pain and suffering suffered by him. He was also held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim-petition till its realization. The liability of the respondents was declared to be joint and several. The respondent-Insurance Company was, however, directed to satisfy the claim. According to the claimant, on 30.9.1989 at 6.00 p.m., he was coming from Subhash Mandi, Kurukshetra, on a bi-cycle after purchasing FAO No. 683 of 1990 -2- articles from the shopping complex, Urban Estate, Sector 13, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. He was going on his left side. Respondent No.1, who was driving a moped bearing registration No. HR-07-0453 rashly and negligently, hit him from behind as a result of which the claimant fell down and suffered fracture over his left shoulder/chest, besides, other injuries on the left side of his head near ear and multiple injuries on his body. After the accident, respondent No.1 fled with the moped. The number of the moped was noted down by Anil Kumar, who was coming from the side of the market. The claimant was admitted as an indoor patient in Gandhi Nursing Home, where x-ray was conducted and bandage was applied. According to the claimant, he spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the hospital. Besides, his shop remained closed due to the accident. Lateron he had to arrange two helpers for his business on payment of Rs.1800/- in advance. Thereafter also, the claimant remained under treatment and spent another amount of Rs.10,000/- on medicines, etc. A special attendant was arranged for his care and medicines @ Rs.50/- per day. Accordingly, the claimant prayed for granting him an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Upon notice, respondent No.1, owner/driver of the moped in question admitted that the accident took place on 30.9.1989 at 6.00 p.m. near Police Post Civil Lines, Housing Board Umri Road, Thanesar and at that time he was driving the said moped. His moped was insured with respondent No.2. According to him, the accident had taken place due to the fault and negligence of the claimant himself. The claimant was proceeding on a bi- cycle in front of his vehicle without observing the rules of the road. He had FAO No. 683 of 1990 -3- blown horn but the claimant did not care. In its written statement, respondent No.2-Insurance Company denied the stand of the claimant and, accordingly, prayed that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the claimant received injuries in an accident which took place on 30.9.1989 with Hero Majestic No. HR-07-0453 due to its rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1- Balvinder Singh?OPP. 2. In case issue No.2 is proved, to what amount is the claimant entitled to and from whom?OPP. 3. Whether there has been collusion between the claimant and respondent No.1, if so to what effect?OPR-2. 4. Relief. After going through the evidence led by the parties, learned Tribunal concluded that the claimant received the injuries in the accident which took place on 30.9.1989 with the moped in question due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. As regards compensation, learned Tribunal held that the claimant had not come to the Court with clean hands. He had made an exaggerated and false claim of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. He was, accordingly, held entitled to an amount of Rs.3,000/- only for pain and suffering and, therefore, the respondents were directed to pay the said amount to the claimant along with interest from the date of filing of the claim-petition till the realization. As mentioned above, the respondent- Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the claim. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the FAO No. 683 of 1990 -4- appellant was running a business from which he had a monthly income of Rs.2,000/-. He spent Rs.10,000/- on medicines etc., besides, an amount of Rs.10,000/- which he had spent at the private hospital of Dr.N.K.Gandhi- PW3. A special attendant had to be arranged by the appellant @ Rs.50/- per day. Besides, he had arranged two helpers for his business at a monthly payment of Rs.1800/-. Accordingly, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal to the appellant need to be enhanced. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance company states that the appellant did not produce any material on record to show the expenditure said to have been incurred by him for getting the treatment. At no stage, any plaster was put around the chest area of the appellant and only a bandage was applied as is clear from the testimony of Dr.N.K.Gandhi-PW3. The appellant had not produced any bills so as to show that he spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- on medicines. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the amount of compensation as directed by the learned Tribunal does not need any enhancement. It cannot be out of place to mention here that after the admission of the appeal, it was sent before the Lok Adalat, where it was taken up on 3.12.1999. The Lok Adalat noticed in its order dated 3.12.1999 that the compensation awarded was quite inadequate and needed enhancement. In the considered view of the Lok Adalat, the amount of compensation was to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. However, as no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, the hearing was adjourned. On 8.2.2000 when the matter was FAO No. 683 of 1990 -5- again taken up by the Lok Adalat, no compromise could be arrived at between the parties on the point of quantum of compensation. The appeal was, accordingly, sent back to the High Court for its decision on merits. It has come in the evidence that the appellant was treated for fracture of the left clavicle and multiple injuries by Dr.N.K.Gandhi-PW3, who after taking x-ray of the left clavicle, applied the bandage, besides, doing dressing for the other injuries. The appellant was advised rest for six weeks. It has further come in the statement of Dr.N.K.Gandhi that there could remain pain in the fracture area for 2/3 months and only after the treatment, the person could resume to his normal duties. Besides stepping himself into the witness box as PW.1, the appellant also examined Mukesh Kumar as PW.2 in support of his claim- petition. Said Mukesh Kumar stated on oath that he was working as a helper at the shop of the appellant @ Rs.900/- per month. He started working there in October, 1989 and was still working as such on 19.2.1990 when his statement was recorded by the learned Tribunal. Mukesh Kumar also testified that the appellant had engaged one Dharma also as helper for the purpose of effecting home delivery and he was also paid upto Rs.500/- per month. In his cross-examination, Mukesh Kumar deposed that the sale at the shop amounted to Rs.3,00/- to 400/- per day. The appellant had been coming to the shop off and on. Normally he stayed at his house. All this shows that because of the injuries received by the appellant, he could not look after his karyana shop for about three months and, on the other hand, he had to hire two helpers to run his shop. FAO No. 683 of 1990 -6- Though, there is no documentary evidence brought by the appellant on the record to show as to how much amount had been actually spent by him for getting the treatment or on the medicines prescribed by Dr.N.K.Gandhi, yet the Court can independently consider that the appellant must have spent about Rs.5,000/- on his treatment and medicines. Besides, he was required special diet, which must have also put additional financial burden on the appellant. Considering the aforementioned facts, besides, the fact that the appellant had to hire two persons for the purpose of running his karyana shop, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled enhancement of the amount of compensation from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed to the extent of enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-petition till realization of the said amount. The enhanced amount of compensation alongwith the interest be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company to the appellant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 5, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1