IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1462 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:05.04.2011 Shri Baljeet Singh ....Appellant versus Paramjit Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Wadhera, Advocate, for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for injuries alleged to have been sustained in a motor accident. The claimant had stated that he was a pillion rider in a scooter driven by his brother. On account of his negligent driving, he fell down from the scooter and suffered grievous injuries. He had been taken to the civil hospital immediately where he underwent a surgery and discharged from the hospital after nearly a week. He had examined himself to speak FAO No.1462 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - about the accident and filed medical bills to show that he had incurred expenses about Rs.15,000/- and has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15%. 2. The Tribunal dismissed the petition refusing to believe the contention of the petitioner on the ground that there was no complaint to the police and being a lawyer, he ought to have known the procedure for lodging a complaint. The Tribunal also reasoned that his brother, who was cited as a respondent, was not identified as his own brother in his pleadings and even the father's name had been deliberately not typed, but later added in hand writing. The Tribunal, therefore, observed that this case must be a fabrication and chose to dismiss the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the fact of the accident involving his brother's driving was not denied at all by the Insurance Company. Even prior to the filing of the petition, a notice had been issued on 12.08.1998 where it was stated that the accident had taken place when the claimant was a pillion rider in a scooter, driven by Paramjit Singh. It could be noticed that at all times the petitioner was keen of concealing the fact that his brother was driving the scooter. He had probably apprehensions that it could be doubted as collusive. Neither the notice issued prior to the filing of the petition nor in the reply to the averments contained in the petition was there ever a denial by the insurer that the petitioner was not pillion rider and that the accident had not taken place in the manner stated by him. I will not make issue of the fact that the petitioner had not given a complaint to the police station against the rash and negligent driving of the driver. If the petitioner's FAO No.1462 of 2000 (O&M) - 3 - version were to be believed that his brother was driving the scooter, then the fact that he did not give the complaint against his brother is only natural. I will, therefore, reverse the finding of the Tribunal and hold that he had suffered the injuries on account of the accident. 4. As regards the quantum, although the Tribunal had assessed a compensation of Rs.88,500/-, I hasten to reassess the same on known- parameters since the ultimate decision was one of dismissal. The Tribunal had determined the compensation at Rs.15,000/- for loss of income for three months which I will retain. For hospitalization, diet and attendant charges, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.10,000/-, which also, I shall retain. He had produced the bills for medical expenses for Rs.7,300/- and Rs.5,700/- aggregating to Rs.13,000/-. There has been no assessment to pain and suffering and for an accident which had taken place before 2000, where it resulted in a fracture of the upper part of the lower limb and a surgical reduction, I will provide for Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The petitioner relied on a certificate alleged to have been issued by Assistant Civil Surgeon to say that there had been a disability to the petitioner by the fracture of left femur with mild stiffness and impairment of movement of left hip with shortening of left lower limb by ½ inch. No doctor was examined and it is not possible to verify if there had been any permanent disability on account of this injury. It has come through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar and another-2010 12 SCALE 265 that an issue of disability will not be a matter of conjecture by Courts and it shall be expedient to look to the evidence of the doctor FAO No.1462 of 2000 (O&M) - 4 - and a need for examination of a doctor for ascertaining the actual nature of disability. The doctor's evidence could be dispensed only in situation where the assessment is by a duly constituted Medical Board. I am not, therefore, in a position to accept the disability certificate except in so far as it records the fact that there had been a shortening of the limb by ½ inch. I would, therefore, assess only towards loss of amenities of life at Rs.25,000/- as the compensation payable. The overall compensation as payable would come to Rs.48,000/-. The amount shall bear interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment. 5. I have seen through the terms of the policy and I find that it was a package policy where the risk is covered also to a pillion rider, going in a scooter. The Insurance Company shall, therefore, be bound to satisfy the claim of the claimant. 6. The decision of the Tribunal is set aside and the award is granted in favour of the appellant as above. 7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.04.2011 sanjeev