Harish Chand S/O Sh. Makhan Lal vs Bachchi Singh Negi S/O Sh. Narayan ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 279 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Gupta, J.

1. Appellant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation to Rs. 50,000/- as prayed for in the claim petition.

2. Appellant's case is that on 23rd May, 1984 he boarded bus No. UTF-2489 belonging to U.P.Road Transport Corporation from Haldwani for Delhi. At about 9.00 p.m. when the bus was three kilometers away from Haldwani Bus Stand, a truck No. UTF-7836 came from opposite side at a very fast speed and struck against the right side of the bus, as a result of which some persons received injuries and one of them died. The appellant also received injuries in this road accident. The bus was also being driven at a very fast speed and does not appear to be under control of the bus driver. The bus was being driven by respondent No. 1 while respondent No. 2 is the owner of the bus whereas, respondent No. 3 is the truck driver and respondent No. 4 is its owner and it is insured with respondent No. 5.

3. The appellant suffered permanent disfigurement of his hand and also suffered permanent disablement and for a period of two months he was confined to bed and had to engage private nurse and compounder to attend him. The appellant claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident and stated that details of the amount under various heads shall be furnished with proof subsequently. It may be pointed out that no such proof was furnished by the appellant subsequent to the filing of the petition.

4. Vide impugned judgment dated 1st March, 1997 Sh. R.K. Gauba, Judge, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Delhi, passed an award of Rs. 23,500/- in favor of the appellant and against respondents 3 to 5.

5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation, appellant has come in appeal before this Court.

6. Appellant had imp leaded the driver and owner of bus also but later on his counsel gave a statement that he does not want to proceed against them and their names be deleted from array of respondents. Vide order dated 23rd September, 1998, names of respondents 1 & 2 were deleted from the array of the respondents.

7. Appellant had imp leaded the Presiding Officer of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal as respondent No. 6. Since he was an unnecessary party, vide order dated 18th November, 1997 passed by this Court, name of respondent No. 6 was also deleted from the array of the parties.

8. On 2nd February, 2007, none was present and matter was adjourned for 7th February, 2007. On 7th February, 2007 again none was present for the appellant whereas, counsel for the respondent No. 5/Insurance Company was present and matter was listed for 8th February, 2007.

9. On 8th February, 2007 again none was present for the appellant while counsel for respondent No. 5/Insurance Company was present and as such arguments were heard.

10. The grounds on which enhancement of compensation has been sought are that the learned Tribunal awarded much less amount of compensation for the loss of future prospects and ignored the fact that the accident has resulted in permanent disfigurement of the appellant's hand.

11. Regarding the accident, the learned Tribunal has given its finding that the accident took place while the bus was moving on the correct side of the road within controlable speed and the accident occurred on account of the truck driver having come from opposite direction in fast speed, as a result of which, apparently truck driver lost control over the vehicle which went into the wrong lane and, thus, the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver. I do not find any ground to disagree with this finding of the fact given by the learned Tribunal.

12. Regarding quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant in his petition stated that he would furnish details of the amounts claimed by him under various heads with proof subsequently. No such proof has been submitted. Appellant was 24 years of age at the time of accident and his monthly salary was Rs. 750/-. In his statement he stated that the injuries sustained by him were on his head and fracture in the right hand. The MLC Ex.PW-2/2 only confirms lacerated wounds and abrasions on his right hand. It does not corroborate the claim about injuries on any other part of his body. As per finding of the learned Tribunal, an X-ray was advised, though there is no report confirming that the injuries resulted in any fracture. Appellant produced disability certificate Ex.PW-5/1 before the learned Tribunal. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that this certificate confirms that the injuries in appellant's right hand have resulted in Traumatic permanent stiffness in the right index finger and numbness in other four fingers resulting in loss of functioning, assessed up to 10%. The Tribunal also held that the disability has not affected the career of the appellant and he continues to be in the same service, without any loss of earning, but since, it resulted in loss of amenities of life, so it must be compensated. Since the appellant was treated in the hospital for about 2 months, as such he was awarded compensation of Rs. 1,500/- on account of loss of earning for two months.

13. The appellant did not produce any bill or prescription relating to his medical treatment but since he must have incurred some amount, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- on this account. Keeping in view the nature of permanent disability, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of future prospects were awarded and besides general damages, for pain & sufferings amounting to Rs. 10,000/- was awarded. The Tribunal, thus, awarded Rs. 23,500/- being just compensation to the appellant.

14. In view of the injuries sustained by the appellant and the fact that he was confined to bed for two months and has been fully compensated for loss of earning and also duly compensated for medical expenses, loss of future prospects, pain & sufferings. So, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not just. No ground for enhancement of compensation is made out. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and no flaw can be found in the award. Accordingly, the present appeal is not maintainable and the same is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.