FAO No. 124 of 1991 -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 124 of 1991 Date of Decision : March 04, 2010 Madan Lal ....Appellant Versus Rajesh Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr Ravish Bansal, Advocate for Mr Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.3. T.P.S. MANN, J. The claimant is before this Court by way of an appeal against the award rendered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala on 13.10.1990 to the extent of granting him inadequate compensation. The claimant had filed a claim petition wherein he sought compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of his injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 29.7.1988 between scooter No.PCT-549 and truck No. PJP-7107 in the area of village Barsat. He averred that on 29.7.1988, he alongwith his cousin Mohinder Kumar alias Mohinder Pal of Sangrur started from Sangrur to Patiala on scooter No.PCT-549 and the said scooter was being driven by Mohinder Kumar at a moderate speed and he was sitting on the pillion of the scooter and when they reached in the revenue limits of village Barsat, a truck No.PJP-7107 FAO No. 124 of 1991 -2- driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and struck against the scooter, as a result of which he and Mohinder Kumar received injuries. The claimant also alleged that the scooter was also damaged in the said accident and the driver of the truck was apprehended at the spot and the matter was reported to the police. The claimant also alleged in the claim petition that he remained admitted in the hospital and his right leg above the knee had to be amputated due to the injuries sustained in this accident and the claimant has thus become lame and permanently disabled and he spent Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment. The claimant also alleged that he remained on leave from 29.7.1988 to 1.11.1988. The respondent contested the claim petition, controverting the allegations of the claimant. Respondent No.1 took the plea that he was driving the tanker/truck at the speed of 25/30 KM per hour on the correct side of the road and a bus was coming from the opposite side and the scooterist over took the said bus at a very rash speed and on seeing the truck coming from the opposite side, the scooterist became perplexed and the claimant jumped from the scooter and fell down on the road. On seeing the scooterist overtaking the bus he took his tanker/truck to its extreme left touching the extreme left of the berm. Respondent No.2 also took the same stand as taken by respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 took the stand that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the scooterist. Vide order dated 11.5.1989, learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether Bhupinder Singh respondent caused the motor accident on 29.7.88 in the area of village Barsat by his rash and negligent driving of Tanker No.PJP-7107? OPP FAO No. 124 of 1991 -3- 2. Whether Madan Lal claimant received injuries in the accident in question? OPP 3. Whether Madan Lal claimant is entitled to the compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondent? OPP 4. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, learned Tribunal held that Bhupinder Singh- respondent No.2 caused the accident on 29.7.88 in the area of village Barsat by his rash and negligent driving of truck/tanker No.PJP-7107 and Madan Lal received injuries in the accident in question. Accordingly, the compensation was assessed as follows: 1. Medical expenses : Rs.10,000/- 2. Mental agony, shock, pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/- 3. Permanent disability : Rs.80,000/- 4. For artificial Limb : Rs.15,000/- Total : Rs.1,55,000/- While allowing the claim petition, learned Tribunal awarded the aforementioned amount as compensation to the claimant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The liability to pay the awarded amount was held to be of respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally, but as their liability was covered under the policy of insurance to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Insurance Company-respondent No.3 was made liable to pay the awarded amount to that extent and the liability for the payment of remaining amount was fastened upon respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The claimant had claimed that he spent Rs.40,000/- on his FAO No. 124 of 1991 -4- treatment. However, he could lead evidence to show that he had spent an actual amount of Rs.10,000/- only. Therefore, learned Tribunal rightly granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses. Similarly, learned Tribunal did not err in awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, shock, pain and suffering as the claimant remained admitted in the hospital firstly from 30.7.88 to 27.8.88 and then from 6.9.88 to 13.9.88 and was operated upon twice, firstly on 30.7.88 and secondly on 17.8.88 and there was amputation of his leg above knee. Though the claimant asserted that he intended to go abroad for getting the artificial limb fitted which would have entailed an expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- after including the travelling expenses, yet, as informed by learned counsel for the claimant, his client did not go abroad and got the artificial limb fitted locally. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal thought it reasonable to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- for artificial limb. The claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- by the Tribunal for permanent disability. As per AW-9 Dr Baldev Singh, Professor, Orthopaedics, Medical College, Patiala, the claimant was a case of amputation through right thigh and permanently physically handicapped. The disability was 80%. He was a young man of 29 years of age and yet to be married. He was a Science Teacher in Govt. High School, Ealwal Gaggarpur, Distt. Sangrur. As per the claimant himself, he had lost his right lower limb and could walk with crutches only. His marriage prospects had become bleak due to his disability/handicap. Therefore, a sum of Rs.80,000/- awarded to him on account of permanent disability was grossly inadequate. The same needs to be enhanced by Rs.50,000/- so as to provide solace to the claimant for facing the world. Consequently, the total amount FAO No. 124 of 1991 -5- of compensation would get enhanced by Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,05,000/-. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,55,000/- to Rs.2,05,000/-. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the claim petition till recovery. Liability to pay the awarded amount shall be of respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally, but the liability to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be of Insurance Company-respondent No.3 and the liability for the payment of remaining amount shall be of respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. No costs. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 04, 2010 JUDGE Pds