F.A.O.No. 1123 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) F.A.O.No. 1123 of 1987 Adesh Kumar Jain. ....Appellant Versus The Punjab State & Ors. ...Respondents 2) F.A.O.No. 1225 of 1987 The Punjab State & Anr. ....Appellants Versus Adesh Kumar Jain & Anr. ...Respondents Date of Decision : 27.11.2008 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate for Adesh Kumar Jain (appellant in F.A.O.No.1123 of 1987 and respondent No.1 in F.A.O.No.1225 of 1987. Mr.N.S.Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the Punjab State. MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of both the aforesaid appeals bearing F.A.O.Nos.1123 and 1225 of 1987. One Adesh Kumar Jain suffered fracture of both the humerous with radial nerve paralysis on the left side in a vehicular accident which took place on 4.1.1985. He preferred a claim petition F.A.O.No. 1123 of 1987 -2- and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.61,586/-, the break-up of which is as under :- i) For permanent disability Rs.40,000/- ii) For medical treatment Rs.10,000/- iii) For loss of income Rs. 5,000/- iv) For mental agony & suffering Rs. 5,000/- v) For medical expenses Rs. 1,586/- Dissatisfied with the said award, the injured has filed F.A.O.No.1123 of 1987. On the other hand, the Punjab State, on whom the liability to satisfy the award has been fastened has preferred F.A.O.No.1225 of 1987 challenging its liability to satisfy the award both on the issue of negligence and also on the issue of quantum. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the finding on the issue of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is correct. The bus was being driven by Pritam Singh which struck against a tree. While disputing the negligence it was stated by RW3 Pritam Singh that a military truck was coming from the opposite direction and there was a barrier and in order to avoid dashing against the military truck he swerved the bus to the kacha portion of the road and in that process it hit the tree. The appellant-claimant was the passenger of the bus. It has also been testified by RW3 that ahead of the military truck a bus was also coming and when the military truck tried to overtake that bus he took his bus on the kacha portion of the road. There was sand on the kacha portion of the road to the level of 2-1/2 feet and, therefore, he could F.A.O.No. 1123 of 1987 -3- not control the bus which hit against a tree because of the sand. Had the driver been careful of the oncoming vehicle, he could have easily avoided the accident. There is, thus, no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, there is no evidence of permanent disability. Even the paralysis which the appellant-claimant is said to have suffered in his left side has been stated by the doctor as an injury which is likely to recover with the passage of time. In any eventuality, there is evidence on record to show that the appellant had undergone two operations, one at Ferozepur and the other at Delhi. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the amount awarded on account of pain and suffering is inadequate. The same is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other counts does not warrant any interference. In this manner, the claimant-appellant is held entitled to a compensation of Rs.81,586/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing o the petition till its realisation. The liability to satisfy the award shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award the appeal filed by claimant Adesh Kumar Jain is allowed and that of the State is dismissed. 27.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss