Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mian Jalal-ud-Din,A.S. Anand, JJ.
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
P.S. Mahal - Respondent
CMA No. 36/1975
Decided On : 12 January, 1976
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110 - DELAY IN FILING CLAIM - CONDONATION - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - MISTAKE OF COUNSEL - NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO PETITIONER - DELAY CONDONED - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - INJURIES SUSTAINED - DISABILITY - LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE - GENERAL DAMAGES - INTEREST - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Central Public Works Department, was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of the driver of a military vehicle. He filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which awarded him Rs. 36,242.00. The petitioner appealed, challenging the quantum of compensation and the Tribunal's finding that the delay in filing the claim was not condonable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in filing the claim was condonable, as it was not due to any negligence or inaction on the part of the petitioner. The court also held that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the quantum of compensation, and awarded the petitioner a total of Rs. 65,442.00, with interest and costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in filing the claim was condonable? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the quantum of compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in filing the claim was condonable, as it was not due to any negligence or inaction on the part of the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had engaged two senior counsels in the case and was acting under their advice. The court also noted that the counsel had made strenuous efforts to file the claim in a timely manner, but was unable to do so due to a mistake of law. The court held that the mistake of counsel could not be attributed to the petitioner, and that he should not be penalized for it. 2. The court held that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the quantum of compensation. The court noted that the petitioner had suffered serious injuries, including a one-inch shortening of the left lower limb, foot drop on the left side, waisting of muscles of both sides, and limitations of movements of both hip and knee joints. The court also noted that the petitioner was likely to suffer further disability in the future due to osteo-arthritic changes in the hip and knee joints. The court held that the Tribunal had failed to take into account all of the relevant factors in assessing the quantum of compensation, and that the award was therefore inadequate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's appeal and awarded him a total of Rs. 65,442.00, with interest and costs.
2. Briefly speaking the facts of the case as disclosed from the judgment of the Tribunal are: that Shri P. S. Mahal the appellant in case No. 40 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner appellant) who was working as an Executive Engineer in the Central Public Works Department (C. P. W. D.) at Jammu had gone to Udhampur on 28th of August 1969 in Government Jeep No. JKN-2462 which was driven by Shri Mohd Akbar driver of the department. It was a left hand driven jeep. While returning from Udhampur to Jammu when the appellant was on Ramnagar-Jammu road only 5 miles away from the City of Jammu, a military truck driven by respondent No. 2 was coming at fast speed from the opposite direction. The driver of the said vehicle tried to overtake the military vehicle ahead of him and while doing so he came on the wrong side of the road. He without observing the traffic rules and without blowing horn dashed his vehicle against the jeep of the petitioner appellant The collision caused a serious impact due to which the jeep was pushed back at a considerable distance as a result of which the petitioner appellant was thrown out of the jeep and he received serious injuries. The driver of the jeep was also thrown out. The petitioner appellant became unconscious and was removed to civil Hospital Jammu in a civil bus wherefrom he was flown to Chandigarh where he was admitted in the Postgraduate Institute on 29th of August, 1969. He remained there as an indoor patient till 11th of January, 1970. The petitioner appellant had received serious injuries on the skull, face right clavical ribs, right hip and left thigh. He had also sustained fractures of clavical right side in the chest, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh ribs, fracture in the skull. After he was discharged from the Postgraduate Institute he resumed his duty on 1st of May 1970. He thereafter instituted a suit for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000,00. against the Union of India in the High Court on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The breakup is as under:
(i) Expenses incurred on treatment upto-date and future. ...Rs.8,000/-
(ii) Expenses incurred on Air fare and other transport charges, conveyance etc. ... Rs. 500/-
(iii) Expenses which the claimant would incur on a driver and on attendant without whom the claimant cannot do and which expenses he could avoid in case there would be no accident, calculated at Rupees 300/- per month for 15 years.
... Rs. 54,OOO.O0
(Iv) Pecuniary loss on account of loss of prospects of promotion to the Superintending Engineers post at Rs. 150/- P. M. for 3 years assuming that he would be promoted at the age of 55, at which age he was sure to be promoted, keeping in view his seniority, merit and experience. ... Rs. 54,000.00
(v) Loss at Rs. 1000./-P. M. for 5 years after the date of retirement inasmuch as he could get a private employment at the said salary easily after his retirement. ... Rs.60,000.00
(vi) General damages for extreme anguish and pain, partial and
future disfigurement, disability, partial and permanent,
shortening of expectation of life by at least 5 years (assuming that the normal age 70 years) and past and future loss of enjoyment of life. ...Rs. 1,22,100.00
Total , Rs. 2,50,000,00
3. The case proceeded in the High Court till 9-4-1971 when Notification dated 14th of July 1970 was brought to notice of the court by the defendants counsel according to which the-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had been constituted. Distric
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
