IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 58 of 1991 Date of Decision : March 30, 2010 Santokh Singh .... Appellant Versus Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. T.P.S. MANN, J. By way of the present appeal, the claimant has sought enhancement of compensation amount granted to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar vide impugned award dated 14.9.1990. The claimant had filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents for awarding him an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of receiving injuries in a motor vehicular accident. According to the claimant, on 9.6.1985 at about 12.15 noon, he was going on his scooter No. PJA- 2662 on the correct side of the road. However, bus No. PJG-7209, while being driven by Bakhtawar Singh-respondent rashly and F.A.O. No. 58 of 1991 -2- negligently and after coming to the wrong side of the road hit the claimant and his scooter. As a result, the claimant fell on the road and sustained numerous injuries. All the respondents contested the claim petition by filing a joint written statement, wherein they averred that Bakhtawar Singh- respondent was coming from Katra by driving bus No.PJG-7209 and when he reached near Verka, he found the railway crossing closed and stopped the bus. There were two other buses ahead of his bus. There were also rickshaws, tongas and other vehicles standing on both sides of the railway crossing. When the railway crossing was opened, Bakhtawar Singh started the bus and was still proceeding at a very slow speed when the scooter driven by the claimant rashly and negligently came and struck against the tonga. As a result, the claimant fell down near the rear wheel of the bus. All the passengers raised raula that a scooter driver had fallen after striking with the tonga. Bakhtawar Singh stopped the bus and took the injured to the hospital. It was denied that the accident had taken place with the bus driven by Bakhtawar Singh and, therefore, the respondents were not liable to pay any damages. In replication, the claimant re-asserted his stand as taken by him initially in his claim petition. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal had framed the following issues: F.A.O. No. 58 of 1991 -3- 1. Is the application barred by time ? OPR 2. Whether Santokh Singh received injuries in an accident involving his scooter No.PJA- 2682 and bus No.PJG-7209 ? OPA 3. If issue No.2 is proved, whether the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus of the respondent No.4 ? OPA 4. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled ? OPA 5. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, learned Tribunal decided issue No.1 against the respondents, while issues No.2 and 3 in favour of the claimant. Accordingly, under issue No.4, a total amount of Rs.27,393/- was awarded to the claimant as compensation, to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of the decision, failing which the claimant was held entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation of the compensation amount. Out of the said amount, Rs.15,000/- was awarded on account of pains and sufferings, Rs.5,000/- on account of special diet expenses and Rs.7,393/- on account of treatment. The only question which arises for determination in the present appeal is about the amount of compensation to which the claimant is entitled, as only the claimant has preferred the appeal F.A.O. No. 58 of 1991 -4- against the impugned award and prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas no appeal has been filed by any of the respondents. The various bills brought on the record by the claimant showed that he had spent an actual amount of Rs.2,393/- on his treatment. Some of the bills produced by him were not taken into consideration. Apart from the same, learned Tribunal was of the view that the claimant was also entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- for expenses on his treatment for which he could not preserve the receipts. Similarly, he was granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- for special diet in view of the nature of the injuries and Rs.15,000 for pain and sufferings. The main question, which arises for determination in the present appeal is regarding the permanent disability which the claimant had suffered on account of the injuries received by him in the accident. In that regard, he had examined AW9 Dr. R.P.S. Boparai, Senior Lecturer, Orthopaedics Unit No.I, SGTB Hospital, Amritsar, who testified that Dr. Hardas Singh, Professor and Head of Department of Orthopaedics of SGTB Hospital, Medical College, Amritsar, with whom he had been working, had issued and signed certificate Ex.AW8/2. This witness had also examined the claimant in the Court and agreed with certificate Ex.AW8/2. According to him, the claimant had overall disability or functional loss permanently of 65% and, therefore, for all purposes he was a handicapped person, who could not run like an F.A.O. No. 58 of 1991 -5- ordinary person and could walk with a limp. As per the certificate Ex.AW8/2, the claimant was examined by Dr. Hardas Singh, who found that there was limitation of flexion at hip by 90 degree, adduction and abduction at hip were normal, there was limitation of internal rotation, knee joint was stiff and range of movements was 0 to 10 degree. There was shortening by 5” on the right side. There was also slight limitation of pronation of the right forearm and slight limitation of the movement of the right wrist. His overall functional loss was 65% which was permanent. The claimant had also examined AW8 Lekh Raj, Steno to C.M.O., Amritsar, who produced original disability certificate Ex.AW8/1 issued by Dr. Hardas Singh and he identified the signatures of Shri Nirmal Singh Aneja, C.M.O., Amritsar as he had been working under him and seen him writing and signing. He also produced certificate Ex.AW8/2 issued by Dr. Hardas Singh and stated about identifying his signatures also on the same as he had been seeing Dr. Hardas Singh writing and signing. Both, AW9 Dr. R.P.S. Boparai and AW8 Lekh Raj, were not cross-examined by the respondents. Therefore, the permanent disability certificate Ex.AW8/2 and disability certificate Ex.AW8/1 cannot be left out of consideration. Despite the same, learned Tribunal, in para 16 of the impugned award, came to the conclusion that without examination of Dr. Hardas Singh and Dr. Nirmal Singh Aneja, certificates Ex.AW8/2 and Ex.AW8/1 could not be considered to hold that the claimant had disability to the extent of 65%. Even if the aforementioned certificates are ignored, there is testimony of AW9 Dr. R.P.S. Boparai, who himself was a senior Lecturer in Orthopaedics, Unit No.1 of S.G.T.B. Hospital and Medical F.A.O. No. 58 of 1991 -6- College, Amritsar, when he deposed about having examined the claimant in the Court itself and deposed that there was overall disability of functional loss permanently of 65%. Therefore, the claimant was a handicapped person for all purposes. He could not run like an ordinary person and could walk with a limp. Therefore, it has to be held that on account of injuries received by him in the accident, the claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 65%. The claimant was working as Principal, Ramgarhia Higher Secondary School, Town Hall, Amritsar at the time of the accident. According to him, he used to be appointed as Superintendent/Invigilator at examination centres. He also stated that the school had employed another Principal in his place after the accident. It is a fact that the claimant has not been able to substantiate his stand about the school having appointed someone else in his place as Principal but at the same time keeping in view the testimony of AW9-R.P.S. Boparai as well as the disability certificates Ex.AW8/2 and Ex.AW8/1 confirming the fact that the claimant had suffered 65% permanent disability, the Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- ought to be granted as compensation to the claimant under the said head. The accident in question had taken place on 9.6.1985. The claimant had filed the claim petition on 3.12.1985. The same was allowed by the learned Tribunal on 14.9.1990 by awarding him an amount of Rs.27,393/- only as compensation. Instead of awarding any interest to the claimant on the compensation amount so awarded from F.A.O. No. 58 of 1991 -7- the date of filing of the claim petition, learned Tribunal directed the respondents to pay the said amount within two months from the date of its compensation, failing which the claimant was held entitled to the interest @ 12% per annum. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the claimant was entitled to interest on the compensation amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Resultantly, the amount of Rs.27,393/- awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar to the claimant as compensation is enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/- and to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. Besides, the claimant is also held entitled to interest on the compensation amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 30, 2010 JUDGE satish