IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 97 of 1999 Reserved on: 28.4.2010 Date of decision: 04.05.2010 Jagdish Chand Sharma ... Appellant Versus Bachan Singh and others ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Archna Dutt vice Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. V.K. Ahuja, J. : This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, dated 15.3.1999, vide which the appellant/petitioner was granted compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act amounting to Rs.2000/- and his claim was rejected for damages to the goods. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant as petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation for the personal injuries and for the loss of consignment of potatoes, which he 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 allegedly suffered in an accident of truck No. PAH-7635 on 6.8.1996. The petitioner alleged that he engaged a truck owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3 for carriage of 104 bags of potatoes from Badshal to Delhi. The petitioner also boarded the truck in the capacity of the owner of the goods. On way, the truck met with an accident and the petition was filed as against the respondents claiming compensation that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the truck. The respondents denied the allegations. The following issues were settled by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident, in question, took place due to rash or negligent driving of truck No. PAH-7635, as alleged? …OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner suffered injuries and loss of property on account of alleged accident and is entitled to damages? If so, to what amount and from whom? … OPP. 3. Whether the man, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid driving licence? …OPR-3. 4. Whether there was no valid route permit for the vehicle in question at the time of occurrence of the accident, as alleged, if so its effect? …OPR-3. 5. Relief. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.2000/- on account of personal injuries, but insofar as his claim for compensation for the loss to the consignment of potatoes is concerned, the petitioner was 3 advised to file a petition before the Civil Court under the provisions of the Carriers Act, 1865. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant had submitted that insofar as the question for compensation in regard to the consignment of goods being carried in the vehicle is concerned, there is a decision of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court on a reference in this case itself, vide which the claim for carriage of goods cannot be termed to be the property of a third party and, therefore, it follows that claim is not maintainable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 166 and a petition has to be filed before the Civil Court under the provisions of the Carriers Act. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to file the petition under the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since she was pursuing remedy in this Court as well as before the learned Tribunal, time taken in pursuing the case be allowed to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. There is substance in the plea and the Court before whom the case is filed under the Carriers Act, shall consider the question and condone the delay in filing the case. The petitioner is also allowed further period of thirty days’ time to file the case from the date of the judgment. Insofar as the second claim is concerned for enhancement filed by the petitioner that the learned Tribunal had taken pittance only upon the petitioner and had granted him a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for personal injuries. It was also submitted that the petitioner suffered lacerated wound and had been hospitalized for seven days and, therefore, loss of earning was for seven days and the period during which he remained under pain and sufferings. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the 4 petitioner/appellant has relied upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Haridwar Vs. Soban Singh and Others, 2008(1) T.A.C. 879 (Utta.), wherein on similar facts a sum of Rs.7000/- was allowed by the Court. A perusal of the petition shows that the petitioner has alleged his monthly income as more than Rs.5000/- P.M. while working as agriculturist/orchardist. He alleged that he suffered lacerated wound, was admitted in Civil Hospital on 7.8.1996 i.e. for 5 days. He alleged that he spent a sum of Rs.5000/- on his expenses. Since he did not enclose the bills, the learned Tribunal vide its impugned award had granted him a sum of Rs.2000/- in all. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that he has suffered lacerated wound on his left leg and nose and both the injuries were of simple nature. Therefore, he did not suffer any serious injury and was held entitled to token compensation amounting to Rs.2000/-. The petitioner in his statement as PW-2 stated that he spent Rs.5000/- on his treatment but did not produce any bills. He stated that he was earning Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- P.M. He also stated that he remained admitted in the hospital for seven days. A perusal of the MLC Ext. P-2 also shows that the date of the admission was 7.8.1996, while the date of discharge was 16.8.1996 as is legible from Ext. P-2. He also produced a receipt Ext. P-3 for a sum of Rs.1500/- for taxi charges. In case, the petitioner had remained admitted in the hospital for about nine days and taking monthly income at Rs.3000/- P.M., there was loss of earning for nine days amounting to Rs.900/-, Rs.5000/- can be said to be reasonable for pain and sufferings since he remained in the hospital for about nine days and taking into account, a sum of Rs.1500/- as taxi charges, the 5 petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.7400/- or say Rs.7,500/- in all as compensation. The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed to this extent and he is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,500/- in all. It shall be payable by the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3, before the learned Tribunal. The appeal is partly allowed to this extent only alongwith costs including lawyers fees assessed at Rs.2000/-. ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 04, 2010 Judge (BSS) 6