Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Balbir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Kaka Singh and others - Respondents
FAO No. 630, 1050 of 1995
Decided On : 23-08-2017
Mr. Gobind Rana, Advocate, for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No. 630 of 1995 and for respondent No.1 in FAO No. 1050 of 1995.
Mr. Arun Kumar Singal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO No. 630 of 1995 and for the appellants in FAO No. 1050 of 1995.
Mr. Ankush Jagwan, Advocate, for Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate, for the respondent – Insurance Company (in both appeals).
The main legal point established is the liability of the bus owner and driver for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the importance of complying with legal requirements and producing evidence.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 171
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a bus accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which was challenged through cross appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the injury, treatment expenses, pain and suffering, and the impact on the claimant's earning capacity.
Issues: The issues included the adequacy of compensation, liability of the bus owner and driver, and the validity of the driving license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the bus owner and driver liable for compensation due to negligent driving and unauthorized use of the bus. The court also emphasized the importance of producing evidence and complying with legal requirements.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the claimant's appeal, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 80,000, and dismissed the appeal filed by the bus owner and driver.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
These are cross appeals, one (FAO No. 630 of 1995) filed by the claimant and the other (FAO No. 1050 of 1995) filed by the owner and driver of the bus, against the award dated 05.12.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal').
2. The facts of the case, relevant for decision of both these appeals, are as under :-
On 22.03.1992 at about 7.00 AM, bus bearing registration No. PAB-1011, carrying marriage party, was going to village Seenkh from village Kalkha. At a distance of about 1.5 kilometer from village Chichrana towards village Seenkh, the bus took a sudden jump. As a result of the jump, claimant Balbir Singh's head struck against the ceiling of the bus, he fell down from his seat, and his left leg was fractured. The other members of the marriage party also suffered injuries. Balbir Singh was removed to Civil Hospital, Panipat, for treatment. After treatment from Civil Hospital, Panipat, he was shifted to Nursing Home of Dr. P.N. Gandhi. In the Nursing Home, he was operated upon to treat his fractured leg.
3. Balbir Singh filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It was pleaded that at the time of the accident, he was 32 years of age, working as farm labourer, and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. He claimed that he had spent Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment and medicines.
4. Notice was issued. Driver and owner of the bus filed joint written statement and separate written statement was filed by the respondent - Insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of evidence as well as witnesses produced before it, held that the accident of bus No. PAB-1011 was result of rash and negligent driving by the driver. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the medical treatment, earning of the claimant and the temporary disability of 30%, awarded Rs. 15,000/- for the injury and for pain and suffering; Rs. 13,426.60 paise for medical treatment for which receipts were produced; and Rs. 5,000/- for rich diet and miscellaneous expenses. The claimant was awarded Rs. 7,200/- as compensation for remaining out of work for one year. In total, he was allowed Rs. 40,626.60 paise along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Counsel fee was assessed at Rs. 150/-. The Tribunal also held that the driver and owner of the bus would be liable to pay the awarded amount.
6. Aggrieved of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant and the owner and driver of the bus have filed cross appeals. Since both the appeals are inter-connected, these are being decided by one order.
7. Dealing with the appeal (FAO No. 630 of 1995) filed by the claimant first, regarding enhancement of the compensation, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
8. Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very less. There was a fracture in the leg of the claimant, for which he was hosptialised and operated upon. It was submitted that the claimant being an illiterate person was not able to keep accurate account of expenses of his treatment. It was further argued that because of the fracture in the leg, he is not able to do his normal work as a labourer. The fixing of his monthly income as Rs. 600/- by the Tribunal is also challenged to be on the lower side. Enhancement of compensation for rich diet and for pain and suffering was also prayed for.
9. Learned counsel for the owner and driver of the bus argued that the claimant has suffered no permanent disability. The fracture in leg has not effected his day to day working. The claimant was a farm labourer and it cannot be expected that a farm labourer will get work on all the 30 days of the month. The amount awarded by the Tribunal was just and equitable.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their assistance, regarding enhancement of compensation
