Ravinder Singh vs Jatinder Singh And Anr.
1993 Latest Caselaw 213 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

(1) Ravinder Singh, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal(hereinafter called the M.A.C.T.) dated 27/03/1983.

(2) The admitted facts on accord are that the petitioner sustained injuries because of the collusion of two buses bearing No. D.L.P. 4342. and bus No. D.L.P-3793 driven by respondent No. 1 namely Jatinder Singh.Both these buses were operating under the operation of Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'D.T.C'). Bus No. D.L.P. 3793 was being driven by respondent No. 1. Respondents 2 and 3 are stated to be the owners of this bus. This bus was insured with respondent No. 4 i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter called the insuranceCo.). The second bus D.L.P. 4342 was being driven by respondent No. 5Dilbag Singh. Respondent No. 7 is the owner of the said bus and that bus was attached with respondent No. 6. The said bus was insured with respondent No. 8 National Insurance Company Limited.

(3) By the impugned award the Tribunal held that the petitioner sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus No.D.L.P. 3793 driven by Shri Jatinder Singh, respondent No. 1, and therefore,allowed the compensation against respondents 1 to 4.

(4) By the present appeal the appellant has not assailed the decision of the M.A.C.T. with regard to negligence. The award is challenged only on the ground of insufficiency of the quantum of compensation awarded.

(5) The accident took place on 2/10/1972. The petitioner.aged 23 years, was traveling as a passenger in bus No. D.L.T. 4342. The said bus. was going to Maurice Nagar, when bus No. D.L.T. 3793 coming from the opposite direction hit the bus in which the petitioner was traveling. As a result of this accident petitioner's right hand was fractured at twoplaces; Fracture humorous right middle third and commuted fracture-fracture of upper shaft ulna. Flash was peeled off from the whole of the right hand forearm. There was profuse bleeding and bones had becomevisible. The petitioner was removed to Irwin Hospital where he remained as an indoor patient from 2.10.1972 to 5/01/1973. He was again admitted in hospital on 8/03/1973 for further treatment as an indoorpatient. The skin grafting was done from both legs and belly and plastic surgery was also done during the treatment. While in hospital, the petitioner profusely bleeder for number of days, as a result of excessive bleeding he became unconsious. Two persons were engaged to attend upon him continuously and thus expenses were incurred on attendants as well as on conveyance. The petitioner was given extra nourishing diet during this period.The blood was purchased in order to give transfusion to the petitioner. The petitioner was a Lathe Turner, at the time of the accident, and was working in a company but due to the disability he was discharged from service. The doctor opined that his disability was permanent and to the extent of 70-75%.

(6) The petitioner through the testimony of Public Witness 7, Dr. Sita Gupta, an Associate Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College, Shri Khazan Singh, Record Clerk, Irwin Hospital (P.W.9), and from the testimony of Dr. Arun Goel. Head of the Department of Orthopaedics,(P.W.11) proved the injuries sustained by him and the treatment undertaken by him. Dr. Arun Goel (P.W.11) testified that the petitioner can do manual work but of a very mild nature. His right elbow has become stiff and cannot move as a result of which with the right hand he cannot perform any work.Similarly, there is a limitation on the movement on the finger joints. Elbow of the petitioner is fixed in 70 degrees as a result of this the petitioner has developed physical disability to the extent of 70-75% of the. right upper limb and this disability as permanent. The fact that the disability is to the extent of 70-75% and of permanent nature, has not been subjected to crossexamination. Similarly the fact that his elbow has become stiff and cannot move or be used, has not been challenged. Nor it was challenged that movement of his finger joints are restricted. It is in this background, Mr.O.P. Goyal, Counsel for petitioner assailed the decision of the M.A.C.T.that extent of injuries sustained by the petitioner was 50%. In fact in arriving at this conclusion the M.A.C.T has completely ignored the un rebutted evidence of medical experts. The Tribunal fell in grave error in discarding their testimonies. Dr. Arun Goel (P.W.11) has in clear words stated that on the basis of the injuries sustained by the petitioner he could say that his disability was of permanent in nature and that the extent was 70-75%. I find force in this submission of the Counsel for the petitioner because by no stretch of imagination the M.A C.T. could hold that the disability was to the extent of 50%, in view of the categorical statement of Dr. Arun Goel(P.W. 11).

(7) Having held that the disability was of permanent nature and the extent of disability at 72% I.e. the mean of 70% to 75%, the question would nowarise, what could be the income of the petitioner in 1980 i.e. after he was discharged from service ? The M.A.C.T. assessed the wages or salary of The petitioner as of 1980 as per Notification issued by the Delhi Administration fixing the wages of a Turner in Delhi @ Rs. 320.00 P.M. I do not find any ground to interfere with this assessment because no record from the Office the petitioner where he was working at the relevant time was produced, to prove as to what would have been his salary in 1980. Hence M.A.C.T.rightly relied on the notification issued by Delhi Administration while assessing the income of the petitioner. The petitioner would also be entitled to bonus because a workman in a factory under the Labour Laws is also entitled to Bonus. So taking this factor into consideration, I consider that the petitioner would be earning somewhere near Rs. 350.00 P.M. Taking into consideration the disability at 72% P.A. the amount would come to Rs. 252.00rounding off to Rs. 250.00P.M., multiplied by 12, it would come to Rs.3,000.00P.A. The M.A.C.T. has applied the multiplier of 20 years whichmultiplier, to my mind, is quite reasonable. So applying the multiplier of 20years the general damages would be assessed at Rs. 60,000.00 i.e. (Rs. 3.000.00x20==Rs. 60,000.00). As regard the damages awarded by the M.A.C.T. on account of mental agony, special damages claimed for conveyance, medicine etc. assessed by the M.A.C.T. at Rs. 60,000.00 by the M.A.C.T., to my mind, is quite fair and reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with thesame. I accordingly modify the award of the M.A.C.T. and hold that The petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 66,000/. On this amount there will be no deduction. However, deduction as ordered by the M.AC.T. of a sum of Rs. 1,000/ already received by the petitioner from the Criminal Court will remain. Thus after deducting this Rs. 1,000.00 the net amount of compensation payable to the petitioner would come to Rs. 65.000.00 on which the petitioner would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9/o per annum from the date of application till realisation. This amount the petitioner will be entitled to recover from respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Trial Court file be sent back.