Delhi High Court
Phool Singh vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 21 September, 2017
$~R-245
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 21st September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 641/2010
PHOOL SINGH ...... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. A motor vehicular accident which statedly occurred on
06.01.1999 involving negligent driving of bus bearing registration no.
RJ 02P 927 of second respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation (RSRTC), gave rise to three claim petitions being
presented, one of them (suit no. 523/2008) instituted on 17.08.1999 by
the appellant herein, he being the driver of truck no. DEL 4436, the
others (suit no.525 and 524 of 2008) also instituted on the same date
being for compensation on account of injuries suffered by two other
persons they being Birju and Birbal respectively. It was the case of
the three claimants that they were together, the appellant herein being
the driver of the truck. It is stated in the claim petition that the truck
had developed some snag in the area of village Mohda, PS Sadar
Ambala, Haryana on GT Road and that while the said three persons
were busy changing its tyre at about 6.30 A.M. the bus driven in a
negligent driving by the second respondent came and hit against a
three wheeler parked behind the truck which resulted in the three
persons including the claimant/appellant, coming beneath the truck
and suffering injuries.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and decided the three claim cases by
common judgment dated 04.01.2010. In the case of the claim petition
for and on behalf of the appellant he was granted Rs. 13,000/- as
compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, this inclusive of Rs.
10,000/- towards medical expenditure and Rs. 3,000/- towards
conveyance.
3. The appellant felt aggrieved with the above-mentioned
judgment and came up to seek enhancement of the compensation. He
pointed out through the appeal that the injuries suffered in the accident
included amputation of the thumb of the right hand besides fracture of
seven of his ribs which disrupted his life making him immobile for
about three months. His grievance is that tribunal has not only not
considered the appropriate award for consequent loss of income but
also failed to give any award under the pecuniary heads of loss of
amenities, pain & suffering, future expenses etc. In fact, this Court
notices that the consequent disability factor on account of amputation
of the thumb of a hand also should have been considered but such
aspect has not received due attention of the tribunal.
4. It must be observed here that the reasoning set out in the
impugned judgment is very cryptic, an approach which cannot be
countenanced. This may be demonstrated by extracting the relevant
portion of the judgment as under:-
"Compensation in suit no. 523/2008
Claimant Phool Singh also tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-
1/A. He proved on record medical bills as Ex.PW1/C
(colly) and photographs are Ex.PW1/D-1 and D-2.
There is no challenge to his testimony except the
suggestion that bills are false and fabricated. In his
affidavit he deposed that he suffered multiple injury all
over his body. He deposed that his normal life remained
impaired for about six years. He also deposed that he
was earning Rs. 4000/- pm and sustained monetary loss
of earning Rs. 3 lacs but there is no documentary proof.
He only proved medical bills Ex. PW1/C (colly) which
amount to Rs. 8890/- rounded off to Rs. 10,000/-.
Counsel for claimant states that he spent Rs. 10,000/- on
conveyance. He must have spent some amount on
conveyance during his treatment. I award him Rs.
3,000/- on account of conveyance. Total compensation
comes to Rs. 13000/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of petition till payment."
5. The appeal was admitted by order dated 20.12.2010. When it is
taken up for hearing, there is no appearance for the appellant/claimant.
6. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, the impugned
judgment is set aside. The claim case of the appellant is remitted to the
tribunal for appropriate inquiry and effective adjudication. The
tribunal is reminded of its obligation in law to grant just
compensation.
7. The tribunal shall take up the case for further proceedings on
26th October, 2017. Before proceeding further, it must issue notice to
the secure the presence of parties. Needless to add, the amount of
compensation determined by the previous judgment (which has been
set aside), if already paid by the tribunal shall be liable to be adjusted
against the award that may be passed by the tribunal.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
nk
