F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003. Date of Decision : 18.12.2008 Siri Ram Appellants. VERSUS Raj and others. Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr.Parduman Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate assisted by Mr. Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager, for United India Insurance Company Limited. --- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? JORA SINGH,J. This single judgment shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 3734 of 2003 (Siri Ram Vs. Raj Kumar and others) and F.A.O.No. 3735 of 2003 (Siri Ram Vs. Raj Kumar and others), as both the F.A.O's are against the Award/order dated 4.4.2001 arising out of the same accident whereby claim petition filed by Siri Ram was dismissed and in case of Anil F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003. 2 Kumar, compensation of Rs.500/- was awarded. On 24.1.1998 Siri Ram and Anil Kumar were travelling in a jeep bearing No. HR-35A-0478 and were going towards Narnaul side. Respondent No.1-Raj Kumar was driving the jeep. At about 2.30/3 P.M. jeep reached near Nizampur Check Post. Employees of the Haryana Roadways were present at the check post and were checking the vehicles plied un-authorisedly. On seeing them, respondent No.1 had turned the offending vehicle and started driving the same at a very high speed. Passengers requested him to drive at a slow speed but he did not pay any heed to their request. He had hardly covered a distance of 50 yards from the check post when the offending vehicle had overturned being driven rashly and negligently. Siri Ram, Anil Kumar and Ram Piari had received multiple injuries in the accident. Siri Ram had received fracture in the left leg. Anil Kumar received several injuries. Injured were shifted to hospital. Matter was reported to the police. First Information Report Ex.PA was recorded. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement by denying all the allegations of the claimants. Respondent No.3 filed separate written statement by admitting this fact that vehicle was insured but respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003. 3 1.Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of offending jeep No. HR-35A-0478 by respondent No.1 as alleged in the petition?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the petitioners namely Siri Ram and Anil Kumar suffered injuries in the said accident and are entitled for compensation. If so, from whom and to what amount ?OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 had valid and effective driving licence ?OPR 4. Whether the injured were not travailing as gratuitous passengers in the jeep and as such they are entitled for any compensation from respondent No.3?OPR 5. Relief. Evidence was led by both the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and evidence on the file, appeal filed by Siri Ram was dismissed whereas an award of Rs.500/- was passed in case of Anil Kumar. Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 04.04.2001, separate appeals were preferred by Siri Ram and Anil Kumar . Notice was issued to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003. 4 have gone through the evidence on the file very carefully and thoroughly. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of jeep by respondent No.1-Raj Kumar and in the accident both injured received injuries. Respondent No.l while appearing in the Court stated that there was an accident. Against the finding of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Narnaul, no appeal by the respondents. Both the appellants received multiple grievous injuries but evidence on the file was not properly appreciated. Requested to set aside the impugned Award/order. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that no-doubt as per statement of respondent No.1-Raj Kumar there was an accident but in the accident Siri Ram had not received injuries. After going through the evidence on the file, the claim petition of Anil Kumar was rightly accepted. Learned counsel for the respondent requested to dismiss both the appeals. Evidence on the file shows that appellants were traveling in Jeep No. HR-35A-0478. Jeep was being driven by respondent No.1, there was an accident due to rash and negligent driving of jeep by respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing joint written statement had denied all the allegations of the appellants but respondent No.1 Raj Kumar driver of the offending vehicle while appearing in the court admitted that there was an accident. Against the F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003. 5 finding of learned Tribunal under issue No.1. no appeal by the respondents. So, finding of the Tribunal qua accident has attained finality. Particularly, when First Information Report was registered and respondent No.1 was facing trial. Next question is whether Siri Ram had received injuries in the accident or not. Siri Ram while appearing in Court stated that on 24.1.1998 he along with Gopi had boarded the offending vehicle from the Bus Stand of village Nangal Kalia. Anil Kumar was already sitting in the jeep. On the way, one lady had also boarded the offending vehicle. In the accident, he received injuries . He was shifted to Yadav Nursing Home, Narnaul. He was medico legally examined and temporary plaster was applied. He had received fracture in the left leg. Later on he had gone to hospital when he came to know that a case had already been registered against respondent No.1- Raj Kumar. His statement was recorded by the police. After one month, he again reported back to the Doctor . Doctor had removed the plaster. But statement of Siri Ram inspires no confidence. Dr. C.S.Yadav, Private Medical Practitioner, while appearing as PW-4 stated that on 24.1.1998 Siri Ram had attended his OPD. He was having multiple injuries including fracture of left leg. He was allowed to go home after applying POP cast. Doctor Ranbir Singh stated that on 1.8.1998 Siri Ram came to him with fracture medial malleulous right ankle. On the same day, he was operated upon the fracture was two months old. Screw was fixed. He remained admitted as indoor for seven days. F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003. 6 After discharge, he continued to visit his hospital for follow up treatment. On 9.2.2000 Siri Ram was examined by 'Board of Doctors'. 30% permanent disability was noticed. As discussed earlier name of Siri Ram does not figure in the First Information Report. No MLR of Siri Ram is on the file. If Siri Ram choose to go to a private doctor instead of Civil Hospital, it being a medico legal case then it was the duty of the private doctor also to prepare his medico legal report. State case was registered but Siri Ram was not cited as an eye witness. If Siri Ram had suffered injuries in the same accident then he would have been definitely cited as the prosecution witness. Statement of Siri Ram under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure should have been recorded by the police. In the First Information Report, name of Siri Ram should have been mentioned. As per Doctor, Siri Ram received multiple injuries but Siri Ram was treated as OPD patient. Ex.PD is the prescription slip but no date of treatment. Siri Ram had received fracture in the left leg. Doctor stated that there was a fracture of medial malleulous right ankle. This fact is clear from the prescription slips Ex. PD and PE. Doctor further stated that the fracture when the patient reported to him was two months old. Siri Ram went to doctor on 1.8.1998. That means Siri Ram received fracture in the month of May or June, 1998, whereas the accident was on 24.1.1998. In case, the fracture was two months old then appellant cannot argue that fracture was received in the accident dated 24.1.1998. If fracture was received in the F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003. 7 accident on 24.1.1998 then at the time of examination of the patient by the Doctor on 1.8.1998,fracture cannot be two months old. Fracture should have been eight months old. Disability certificate is also on the file but disability certificate shows that disability was not on account of the fracture of left leg but on account of un-united fracture upper end of left ulna. No case of Siri Ram that he received fracture of left ulna. When Siri Ram was not medico legally examined and was not cited as an eye witness in the First Information Report then the only conclusion which could be drawn is that Siri Ram had not received injuries in the accident. The next question is whether Anil Kumar received injuries in the accident. Anil Kumar when appeared as PW-1 then stated that he has received injuries in the accident and was shifted to Civil Hospital, Narnaul and was discharged after providing first aid. Ex PE is the Medico Legal Report but no medical bill is on the file to show that any medicine was purchased. MLR of Anil Kumar shows that he had received superficial injuries. Anil Kumar was not admitted in the hospital. No medical bill to purchase medicine but immediately after first aid. Anil Kumar was discharged. That means Anil Kumar was not admitted in any hospital. No disability certificate on the file but one thing is clear that Anil Kumar was having superficial injury in the accident. Learned Tribunal had awarded Rs.500/- payable as compensation. There was an accident and in the accident F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003. 8 superficial injuries were received. Injured had gone to hospital but after first aid, he was discharged. That means injured requires compensation under the head 'pains and sufferings'. So ends of justice would be fully met if compensation of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. In view of all discussed above, instead of Rs.500/-, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.5000/-which is payable to Anil Kumar injured. Compensation is payable at the rate of 9% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. Payment already deposited is liable to be adjusted. Award is ordered to be modified accordingly. F.A.O.No. 3734 of 2003 filed by Siri Ram is hereby dismissed. 18.12.2008 ( JORA SINGH) Anoop JUDGE