F.A.O.No.495 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.495 of 1994 Date of Decision 15.03.2010 Gurcharan Singh ...... Appellant(s) VERSUS Amrik Singh and another ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Pritam Saini and Mr.Rajnish Narula, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This appeal for enhancement is directed against the award dated 01.10.1993, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the appellant-claimant (herein referred as 'the claimant') on account of leg injuries suffered by him resulting into shortening of leg by 1½ inches on account of the rash and negligent act of respondent No.1. Briefly stated the facts are that on 15.04.1991 at about 3:50 p.m. Gurcharan Singh claimant, conductor of the bus, was going on foot from Haryana Roadways Workshop to main Bus Stand, Ambala City on his right side of the road and when he reached near Mixi Chowk, Ambala City, then respondent No.1, while driving the bus bearing registration No.CH01- G-5230 rashly and negligently came from the side of Chandigarh and struck against the claimant as a result of which his both legs were crushed under the rear tyre of the bus. The claimant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ambala City, thereafter to PGI, Chandigarh where he remained admitted w.e.f. 15.04.1991 to 13.07.1991. Thereafter he again continued visiting PGI, Chandigarh for follow-up treatment. The FIR against respondent No.1 was registered. However, he also filed a claim petition against the respondents F.A.O.No.495 of 1994 2 which was contested by them raising preliminary objections and denied that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.CH01-G-5230 by respondent No.1 causing injuries to the claimant ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled to and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief. While deciding issue No.1, the Tribunal recorded that the accident took place as a result of negligent driving of respondent No.1. Similarly, after examining the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- to the claimant. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up in this appeal for enhancement. Admittedly, the accident took place on 15.04.1991 at 3:35 p.m. There is also no denying a fact that the Tribunal decided the negligence against respondent No.1 and no appeal has been preferred against the said findings returned by the Tribunal on the said issue. Even otherwise, while examining the evidence, it transpires that the Tribunal appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and recorded the negligence of respondent No.1. However, on examination of the findings on issue No.2, returned by the Tribunal, it appears that the compensation awarded to the claimant, appears to be inadequate. In order to determine, as to actually what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled, the medical evidence is to be gone into. PW1 Dr.Ashok Sarwal, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ambala F.A.O.No.495 of 1994 3 City, proved the disability certificate Ex.PA, according to which the right leg of the claimant was found short to the extent of 1½ inch. He also found the deformity to the extent of 30%. The discharge slip Ex.PE issued by the PGI, reveals that the claimant remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 15.04.1991 till 13.07.1991. This discharge slip further reveals that three operations were conducted and skin grafting was made. Besides the aforesaid medical evidence, the claimant, while appearing in the witness box, has stated that after his discharge from the PGI, he continued visiting the doctor there for 11 times and each visit costed him Rs.450/-. Even now he is unable to perform his normal duties. He cannot walk properly without the help of crutches. Previously, he used to do out-door job for a fortnight within a month and used to earn TA & DA @ Rs.60/- per day. Now he is not assigned any out-door duty due to his deformity. Nevertheless, the claimant, being the public servant must have been reimbursed for the medicines which he had spent but besides the expenses on medicines for which he has been compensated, he had to make variety of expenses during his period of stay in the hospital. He had to undergo three operations but nothing was paid to him on account of the said three operations. Nothing was also paid to him for the expenses of the attendant. He was paid only Rs.2200/- for his 11 visits in the PGI for follow-up treatment. The Tribunal has also omitted to pay anything spent over his special diet, pain and sufferings, transportation, about the diminishing of his image in the society and other pecuniary loss suffered by him for not assigning to him any out-door duty. The claimant has also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in Sameer Chanda versus Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation 1998 ACJ F.A.O.No.495 of 1994 4 1351 where the claimant had suffered the injuries on his leg and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was awarded to him. Hence, in the aforesaid given circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has omitted to award compensation on many heads, as such, the compensation needs to be enhanced and the claimant deserves the following additional amount:- On account of 30% disability Rs.30,000/-(+ Rs.30,000/- and also loss of image in the already awarded) society Special Diet & follow up Rs.20,000/- treatment Attendant Charges Rs.15,000/- Pain & Suffering & future loss Rs.15,000/- Transportation Rs. 5,000/- Be that as it may, the amount awarded by the Tribunal still may be on the lower side. However, the same is being awarded keeping in view the fact that the claimant would also be entitled to receive the interest @ 12% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Resultantly, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned award is modified by enhancing compensation to the tune of Rs.85,000/- over and above the award amount. However, the appellants would also be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the award amount. Parties are left to bear their own costs. The remaining terms of the award passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 15.03.2010 mamta-II