IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1130 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 03, 2009 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ....Appellant Versus Shamsher Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Petition filed by Shamsher Singh-respondent No.1 for claiming an amount of Rs. five lac as compensation on account of injuries received by him on 27.8.2005 at about 8.30 A.M. near I.T.I. College, Gill Road, Ludhiana in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. PB-11C-9512 by Palwinder Singh was allowed on 7.11.2008 by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana by awarding an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. The driver and owners of the bus were made jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. F.A.O. No. 1130 of 2009 -2- Aggrieved of the same, the present appeal has been filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, owner of the aforementioned bus. According to Shamsher Singh-claimant, on 27.8.2005 at about 8:30 A.M. he was going on a cycle to do his work at Gill Chowk, Ludhiana. When he reached near I.T.I. College, the offending bus driven by Palwinder Singh in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing any horn struck against his cycle despite the fact that he was going on his extreme left and correct side of the road. He fell down from his cycle. In the process, he received grievous multiple injuries on his left femur, pelvis and other parts of the body. The accident was witnessed by his father Sukwinder Singh, who was coming behind him on a separate cycle. Both, Shamsher Singh and Sukwinder Singh appeared as PW1 and PW2, respectively, in support of his claim petition. They were duly cross-examined on behalf of the driver and owners of the bus but their testimonies could neither be shattered nor shaken in any manner. The case of the driver and owners of the offending vehicle was that no accident had taken place on account of driving of the bus by its driver. In such a situation, Palwinder Singh, driver of the bus, F.A.O. No. 1130 of 2009 -3- was expected to step into the witness box to depose on oath about the same. On account of not coming forward to rebut the evidence of the claimant, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that it was he who was responsible for rash and negligent driving of the bus leading to the accident in which the claimant received injuries. As per the testimony of the claimant, he remained admitted in C.M.C. and Hospital, Ludhiana from 27.8.2005 to 6.10.2005 and, thereafter, from 7.11.2005 to 10.11.2005 as an indoor patient and even, thereafter, he had been visiting the hospital as an outdoor patient. On account of the injuries received by him, he had become permanently disabled and not in a position to do any kind of job in future. On the basis of original bills Ex. AW3/1 to AW3/44 proved by AW3 Manoj Davis, Senior Accountant, C.M.C. and Hospital, Ludhiana, bills Ex. AW4/1 to AW4/8 proved by AW4 Shamsher Singh, Record Clerk, Gurmail Medical Centre, bills Ex. AW5/1 to AW5/72 proved by AW5 Mukesh Kumar, Salesman, Punjab Medical Store, bills Ex. AW6/1 to AW6/35 proved by AW6 Som Nath and bills Ex. AW7/1 to AW7/114 proved by AW7 Vinod Kumar, Clerk, learned Tribunal directed the payment of Rs. 3,20,000/- towards the actual expenses incurred on the treatment of the claimant for the injuries received by him. Apart from that, the claimant has been F.A.O. No. 1130 of 2009 -4- awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.6,000/- for loss of income, Rs.3,000/- for travelling charges, Rs.3,000/- for special diet and Rs.3,000/- as attendant’s charges as the claimant remained admitted in the hospital for about 40 days in the first instance and for four days in the second due to the injuries suffered by him and during the said period he suffered from the pain, besides having been advised special diet by doctors and he was required to hire an attendant for his care. Besides, he could not attend to his work after 26.8.2005. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- awarded as compensation by the learned Tribunal to the claimant was on the higher side. Resultantly, the Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgement which needs any interference in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 03, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO