FAO No.5362 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5362 of 2010 Date of Decision : 20.01.2011 Jaswinder Singh .......Appellant Versus Dilbagh Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal is preferred by Jaswinder Singh, claimant, against the award dated 30.04.2010 (for short ‘the impugned award’), passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.04.2007, Jaswinder Singh, claimant, along with his paternal uncle, Ajit Singh Khera, was going towards Manakpura, on motorcycle bearing No.PB-02-AF- 0484. Kabal Singh was following them on another motorcycle. At 1 FAO No.5362 of 2010 about 10.30 AM, when they were near the gate of Village Thakapur, a bus bearing No.PB-02-K-9952, being driven by Dilbagh Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Patti. The driver took the bus on wrong side of the road which hit against the motorcycle of the claimant. Resultantly, the claimant and Ajit Singh fell on the road and received multiple injuries. Both the injured persons were removed to the Civil Hospital, Patti, from where they were referred to Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar. 3. The driver and owner of the bus resisted the claim on the ground that a false case was registered against them by the Police at the instance of the interested witnesses. 4. The Insurance Company pleaded that the offending vehicle was not insured with them at the time of accident and Dilbagh Singh, driver, was neither driving the vehicle in question nor he was authorized to drive the same. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle did not have a valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- (1) Whether Jaswinder Singh received injuries in an accident which occurred on 12.04.2007 due to rash and negligent of Respondent No.1 by driving bus No.PH-02- K-9952 ? OPP. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP. (3) Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR. 2 FAO No.5362 of 2010 (4) Whether the claim petition is bad for Non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPP. (5) Relief. 6. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimant holding that the claimant Jaswinder Singh had received injuries in the accident caused by Dilbagh Singh, driver of the bus bearing registration No.PH-02-K-9952 in a rash and negligent manner. While deciding issue No.2, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of `1,25,802/- (rounded off as `1,26,000/-) on various heads as under:- (i) Pain and suffering : `5,000/- (ii) Special diet : `5,000/- (iii) Permanent disability : `50,000/- (iv) Hospital expenses : `50,275/- (v) Medical bills : `15,526/- 7. Issue No.3 was decided against respondent No.3- Insurance Company by holding that Dilbagh Singh, driver, was holding valid and effective driving licence. Issue No.4 was decided against the respondents and in favour of the claimant. 8. Aggrieved against the said award, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the appellant has suffered 45% permanent disability of his right arm which has restricted the movement of his arm, elbow, wrist and forearm. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of `50,000/- which is on the lower side. The claimant is an agriculturist by profession and this permanent disability has reduced his earning capacity. He has 3 FAO No.5362 of 2010 further argued that the appellant-claimant should also be awarded `2,000/- per 1% for admitted disability. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation on account of permanent disability. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned award. 12. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant has suffered 45% permanent disability of his right arm. The claimant is an agriculturist. Naturally, he has lost his working and earning capacity. In Piara Singh and others Vs. Satpal Kumar and others, 2006(4) RCR (Civil), 546, the injured-claimant who had suffered 45% disability was granted `2,000/- for 1% permanent disability. 13. The learned Tribunal granted `50,000/- to the claimant on account of permanent disability which is on the lower side. Following the principle laid down in the Piara Singh’s case (supra), the total compensation on account of permanent disability due to loss of earning capacity comes to `90,000/- but the learned Tribunal has granted `50,000/- only. This Court is of the opinion that a sum of `40,000/- over and above under this head should have been granted. I order accordingly. A sum of `10,000/- is also granted under the head ‘loss of enjoyment of life’. So, in all, the claimant is entitled to `50,000/- more (`40,000/- on account of permanent disability resulting into loss of earning and `10,000/- on account of loss of enjoyment of life). 4 FAO No.5362 of 2010 14. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimant shall also be entitled to a sum of `50,000/- as noticed above. Respondent No.3- New India Assurance Company, shall be liable to pay this amount. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of this petition till its actual realization. The liability to pay the compensation shall be joint and several. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 20.01.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 5