FAO No. 1421 of 1995 -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1421 of 1995 Date of Decision : March 08, 2010 State of Haryana and another ....Appellants Versus Smt. Chhota Devi and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Ms Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Mr Adarsh Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral): The present appeal had been filed by the owners and controllers of the Haryana Roadways Bus bearing No. HNB-2344 against the award dated 21.3.1995 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, whereby the claim petition filed by Smt. Chhota Devi-respondent No.1 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was accepted and she was awarded an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 27.1.1994, Smt Chhota Devi, hereinafter referred to as “the claimant” came to bus stand of Kanina town from her village for boarding a bus for village FAO No. 1421 of 1995 -2- Nihalgarh. She met Leela Ram and Hoshiar Singh at the bus stand. At about noon time, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing No. HNB-2344 came there. With the intention of boarding the bus, the claimant went to its front door. She placed one foot on the foot-board, but in the meantime, Ram Kumar driver of the bus suddenly moved it in the reverse direction. Neither any signal was given nor any whistle blown by the conductor. As a result, the claimant fell down and the front wheel of the bus passed over her legs. Her legs were fractured. She was removed to Primary Health Centre, Kanina, from where she was referred to General Hospital, Narnaul. From there, she was further removed to Army Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt on 28.1.1994, where she was treated by a number of doctors. Despite the same, she was still getting treatment when she filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, wherein she sought an amount of Rs.five lacs as compensation. The claim petition was resisted by Ram Kumar, driver of the offending bus, who controverted the allegations made by the claimant in her claim petition. According to him, no such accident had taken place with his bus and false allegations were levelled so as to get compensation. Similarly, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways while filing separate written statement averred that it was the claimant, who was negligent and careless while boarding the moving bus and therefore, she was victim of her own negligence and responsible for the accident. After going through the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether Smt. Chhota Devi had received injuries in the accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving the bus No. HNB-2344 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP FAO No. 1421 of 1995 -3- 2. To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 4. Relief. In support of her case, the claimant examined PW-1 Dr Sudarshan Kumar, PW-2 Leela Ram, PW-4 Ishwar Singh, PW-5 Dr Dinesh Podar, PW-6 Lt. Col. Aloke Dhar, besides herself stepping into the witness box as PW-3. On the other hand, Ram Kumar driver of the offending bus stepped into the witness box as RW-1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence produced by them, learned Tribunal held that Ram Kumar, driver of the offending bus, moved the bus in backward direction without giving any signal or indication to the passengers, who might be in the process of boarding it, as a result of which, the claimant, who had already put her one foot on the foot-board for boarding the bus, fell down and the front wheel of the bus passed over her legs, resulting in fracture of her both legs, which permanently rendered her invalid and disabled to the extent of 60%. Therefore, she was entitled to receive an amount of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for expenses incurred for conveyance, purchase of medicines, special diet and hospitalization, besides Rs.1,80,000/- as expenditure to be incurred by her throughout her remaining life for engaging an attendant. In all, she was awarded an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation to be paid by Ram Kumar, driver of the offending bus, and the Haryana State, jointly and severally. She was also FAO No. 1421 of 1995 -4- held entitled to interest on the aforementioned amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence with their able assistance. The claimant has been able to establish that on 27.1.1994, when she was boarding the offending bus by placing her one foot on the foot- board, then all of a sudden, Ram Kumar driver of the offending bus moved it in the reverse direction and that too, without giving any signal or indication, as a result whereof she fell down and the front wheel of the bus passed over her legs. The bones of her legs were fractured. She was removed initially to Primary Health Centre, Kanina, from where she was referred to General Hospital, Narnaul. The injuries of the claimant were such that she had to be removed to Army Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt on 28.1.1994. The version of the claimant, who had herself stepped into the witness box as PW-3, was supported by PW-2 Leela Ram whom she had met at the bus stand, where the accident in question had taken place. From the testimony of PW-1 Dr Sudarshan Kumar, it stands established that lacerated wounds were found on both the legs of the claimant, when she was medically examined by him on 27.1.1994. PW-6 Lt. Col. Aloke Dhar proved the certificate Ex.PD issued by Lt. Col. K.H.Singh, as per which there was fracture of both bones of left leg of the claimant. As per the testimony of PW-5 Dr. Dinesh Podar, a Medical Board consisting of him, Dr R.S.Aggarwal and Dr M.P.Lumoria had examined the claimant on 2.1.1995 and found shortening of her left leg by 2½'' with deformity to it and moderate restricted movement of left ankle joint with mild restricted movements of both knee joints and wasting of both sides quadricep muscles FAO No. 1421 of 1995 -5- due to old fractures of both the legs. In the opinion of the Board, there was permanent handicap to the extent of 60%. In this regard, he proved original certificate Ex.PC. In cross-examination, he stated that the claimant was incapable of movement and she was not permanently fit to move. It has come in the evidence of the claimant as PW-3 that because of the injuries received by her she was confined to the bed. She had to hire services of someone for doing the agricultural work, tethering and milching the cattle and selling milk. She had also incurred expenses on the transportation, treatment and special diet. Accordingly, while granting expenses to be incurred by the claimant throughout her remaining life by engaging an attendant, learned Tribunal held that she would be required to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- every month. In para-4 of the grounds of appeal, it has been asserted by the appellants that in her cross-examination, the claimant had stated that during her treatment, she used to pay Rs.100/- per month only to the attendant and, therefore, there was no basis for the Tribunal to hold that the claimant would be spending Rs.1,000/- every month for engaging an attendant. The statement of PW-3 Chhota Devi, including her cross-examination has been perused. Nowhere she had stated about spending an amount of Rs.100/- per month only for engaging services of the attendant. It was not even suggested to her that she had been spending Rs.100/- every month for availing the services of an attendant. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the claimant would be required for engaging an attendant at Rs.1,000/- per month, cannot be said to be either against the evidence or unreasonable. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 52 years of age. For that reason, the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that she FAO No. 1421 of 1995 -6- would require the services of an attendant for the next 15 years and therefore, granted an amount of Rs.1,80,000 (Rs.1,000 x 12 x 15) as compensation on account of expenditure to be incurred by her for engaging an attendant. Apart from the aforementioned amount, the learned Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- for the pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.15,000/- as expenditure incurred on the conveyance, purchase of medicines, special diet and hospitalization. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed. Any amount already paid to the claimant, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on July 5, 1995, shall be adjusted against the payment of the awarded amount. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 08, 2010 JUDGE Pds