FAO No.53 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.53 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: February 4, 2011 BHARAT SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS RAMESH & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. MANI RAM VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the award of compensation for injuries sustained in the motor accident. The claimant was travelling in a jeep driven by the first respondent which according to the claimant was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tractor. The claimant had been taken to the hospital in an unconscious state and was first admitted on 13.5.1989 where he remained till 16.5.1989 and later transported to the Government Hospital where he remained till 1.6.1989. Dr. Ashok Bishnoi, the Doctor who was treating him was examined in the case as PW6. The evidence brought through the Doctor was that he suffered a fracture of pelvis. 2. In the course of evidence, the claimant stated that the accident had taken place only on account of the driving of the driver of the jeep and FAO No.53 of 1990 -2- by his negligence. It appears that there had been a dispute between the tractor owner and the driver of the jeep for settling compensation for some damage to the tractor which had arisen by the accident. The Sarpanch of village who was examined as PW7 gave evidence to the effect that the Panchayat directed some amount to be given by the driver of the jeep, but since he did not accept the same, they referred the matter to the police and before the police a lesser amount was directed to be given to the tractor owner and the driver was also given few beatings. A rural approach to justice which the parties secure to themselves was allowed to prevail before the Tribunal. Surprisingly, the Tribunal took this happening to make an inference that no negligence can be attributed to anyone and dismissed the petition also. It also relied on an alleged statement given by the claimant to a Doctor that the accident had taken place due to no fault of the driver. This alleged attempt also is unworthy of acceptance in a case where the claimant asserted before the Tribunal that the accident had taken place only by the negligent conduct of the driver of the jeep and there was also proof that the tractor owner had claimed some compensation for the damage caused to the tractor by the negligent driving of the jeep. The dismissal of petition, therefore, is untenable. 3. As regards the claim of compensation the evidence was that he incurred expenses to the tune of `10,000/-, though no bills have been produced. He also stated that on account of his injury and his inability to attend to his agricultural pursuits, he suffered a loss of crops to the tune of `8000/-. I will accord to the petitioner both the above amounts. I will also add another `10,000/- for pain and suffering for the fracture of the hip and provide a further sum of `5000/- for attendant charges and special diet. The FAO No.53 of 1990 -3- total amount of compensation will be `33,000/- and this will also attract interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 4. The liability shall be on the driver and the owner of the vehicle arrayed as respondents. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. February 4, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE