Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lali Singh @ Karamjeet Singh vs Bhola Singh Etc on 27 January, 2023
FAO-583-2002 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM-11465-CII-2022 in/and
FAO-583-2002 (O&M)
Reserved on: 19.01.2023
Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2023
Lali Singh @ Karamjeet Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Bhola Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present: Mr. D.S. Walia, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
*****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
CM-11465-CII-2022
This is an application for fixing some actual date of hearing
in the main appeal. Keeping in view the averments mentioned in the
application and considering the fact that the appeal relates to the year
2002, the same is allowed. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the
hearing in the main appeal is preponed to today itself.
Main Case
Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner/claimant
Lali Singh son of Billu Singh had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular
accident, which took place on 04.09.1996 at about 7.00 pm in the area of
village Gandu Kalan, statedly on account of rash and negligent driving of
truck No.PB-03-2027 (for short 'the offending truck') by respondent
1 of 8
FAO-583-2002 (O&M) -2-
No.1 Bhola Singh @ Jagdeep Singh, as such he had filed a claim
petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity
'the Act') against respondents i.e. Bhola Singh @ Jagdeep Singh-driver,
Nachhatar Singh - owner and National Insurance Company Ltd., Hisar-
insurer of the offending truck.
2. That claim petition was tried by Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Hisar (for short 'the Tribunal') and after contest, it was allowed,
vide award dated 06.12.2000, and compensation of Rs.65,000/- was
awarded to the claimant, payable with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date
of filing of claim petition till actual realization.
3. Feeling aggrieved by that award, the claimant had filed an
appeal before this Court, notice of which was given to the respondents,
however, only respondent No.3 has put in appearance through counsel to
offer a contest.
4. It may be mentioned here that record of this case had got
burnt in a fire which broke out in the record room of this Court, however,
whatever papers could be salvaged, the record was reconstructed and the
case is being disposed of after going through such papers as well as the
papers made available by learned counsel for the parties.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record.
6. Vide the impugned award, the tribunal while deciding issue
No.1 had held that it to be a case of contributory negligence observing
that the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant Lali Singh and his
brother Simarjit Singh took place on a national highway between two
2 of 8
FAO-583-2002 (O&M) -3-
vehicles coming from opposite direction.
As per case of petitioner/claimant, on the fateful day i.e.
04.09.1996, claimant Lali Singh along with his brother Simarjit Singh,
father Billu Singh and uncle Munshi Singh were coming from village
Dariyapur after attending marriage of Kirpal Singh, a cousin of
claimant/injured. There is statement on oath of petitioner/claimant as
PW-4 in that regard, who further stated that they were travelling in a
Maruti Car bearing No.HR-22-8750 which was being driven by him and
when they reached near village Gandwa, Tehsil Budlada, a truck bearing
No.PB-03-2027 came from opposite side and struck against maruti car, as
a result of which, he and his brother Simarjit Singh received injuries.
Although, PW-4 petitioner/claimant had categorically stated that the
accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending truck but the tribunal was of the view that the road on which
the accident took place is approximately 16 feet wide and two vehicles
can cross easily and further though the claimant while getting his
statement recorded had placed on file copy of the FIR Ex.P31 but without
their being any evidence to show that respondent No.1 truck driver is
facing trial in the criminal case, it cannot be held that the accident took
place exclusively due to rash and negligent driving of truck by
respondent No.1.
7. The tribunal further observed that had the petitioner been
careful in driving the car by following traffic rules, the accident would
not have occurred. Under the circumstances, it was held to be a case of
contributory negligent on account of rash and negligent driving of maruti
3 of 8
FAO-583-2002 (O&M) -4-
car by petitioner/claimant and offending truck by respondent No.1 Bhola
Singh.
8. In my view, the tribunal fell in error in arriving at such
conclusion which is rather based upon assumptions, surmises and
conjectures. The fact remains that petitioner/claimant appearing as PW4
had categorically stated that respondent No.1 truck driver was author of
the accident by his rash and negligent driving of the truck. He had proved
in evidence copy of the FIR registered against respondent No.1 truck
driver with regard to the accident. In judgment Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhey
Sham & Ors., 1994 (1) ACJ 168, it has been observed that when a driver
is tried on account of rash driving that leads to a prima facie conclusion
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver.
9. Interestingly, respondent No.1 had not stepped into witness
box to depose on oath that he was not at fault in happening of the
accident or that the claimant who was driving the maruti car was also at
fault. It was the tribunal which arrived at conclusion of contributory
negligent without their being sufficient evidence on record. The tribunal
proceeded to decide this issue under an impression that it was dealing
with a criminal case, forgetting that the case in hand being dealt with, was
a claim petition under the Act, which is piece of welfare legislation,
where strict rules of evidence and procedure are not applicable.
Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal is wrong and is not
sustainable. The claimant had successfully established that the accident in
question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending truck by respondent No.1 Bhola Singh, who was guilty of lack
4 of 8
FAO-583-2002 (O&M) -5-
of care and caution while driving the truck and was rather driving it in a
wrongful manner. Therefore, finding of the tribunal on issue No.1 is
modified and this issue is decided in favour of the claimant and against
the respondents, holding that the accident in which the petitioner had
suffered injuries had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving
of the truck in question by respondent No.1.
10. As regards findings on issue No.2, which has been decided
against respondent No.3, no interference therewith is called for. However,
verdict with respect to issue No.3 when the compensation payable to the
claimant was calculated, the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate
and has not been granted under various conventional heads.
11. The petitioner/claimant had successfully established that he
had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 54% in the right lower
limb. With regard to his medical treatment, the petitioner had examined
Dr. M.R. Sapra as PW-1, who stated that on 14.03.1997, Lali Singh son
of Billu Singh was admitted in his hospital on account of septic
compound fracture on the right leg with K-nail inside. Accordingly, he
was operated upon and K-nail was removed on 16.03.1997. The witness
further added that on 14.04.1997, the patient got the second operation of
external fixator and he was discharged on 01.06.1997. The witness added
that the patient was readmitted on 30.08.1997 and discharged on
08.09.1997, then admitted on 27.06.1998 and discharged on 08.07.1998.
The total period of hospitalization was stated to be 78 days. As deposed
by this witness, Rs.10,000/- were charged for operation and Rs.23410/-
for 78 days stay in the hospital vide receipt Ex.P1. The witness had
5 of 8
FAO-583-2002 (O&M) -6-
further proved receipts Ex.P3 for Rs.8000/-, Ex.P4 for Rs.5000/-, Ex.P5
for Rs.5075/-, stating that Rs.10,000/- were charged as fee for the third
operation.
PW-2 Dr. M.L. Gupta had stated that he had examined the
petitioner on 04.09.1996 at 9.00 pm in CHC Ratia and found two injuries
on his person, vide MLR Ex.P1.
PW-3 Tilak Raj, employed as helper in Dr. Karam Singh
Hospital at Amritsar identified signatures of Dr. Karam Singh on bills
and vouchers Ex.P6 to Ex.P28.
PW-6 Dr. D.L. Bansal deposed that on 24.11.1999, he along
with Dr. R.K. Leekha, Senior Medical Officer and Dr. S.P. Mimani
examined Karamjit Singh son of Billu Singh and found him disabled to
the extent of 54% on account of weakness of the right lower limb with
stiffness of right knee, right ankle joint with shortening right lower limb.
He proved disability certificate as Ex.P30.
Petitioner/claimant Lali Singh appearing as PW4 had given
details of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, period of his
hospitalization and amount spent on his medical treatment.
12. Keeping in view the evidence adduced by the claimant and
further considering the fact that it is not always possible to keep record of
each and every penny spent on purchase of medicines and such like
items. The petitioner remained hospitalized for 78 days. The Apex Court
in judgment Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011(1) SCC 343, has
observed that a person suffering injuries in a motor accident is to be
awarded compensation under following heads:-
6 of 8
FAO-583-2002 (O&M) -7-
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, trans-
portation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have
made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
13. Coming to the present case, under the head pecuniary
damages, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 1 lakh towards expenses
relating to hospitalization and medicines.
Money is spent in taking the injured to hospital and
coming back home, the injured had to be hospitalized on several
occasions and to undergo repeated surgeries, for that a sum of
Rs.35,000/- is awarded to him as transportation charges.
Furthermore, a person suffering such types of injuries
require special diet and nourishing food for early recovery, though, no
direct evidence in that regard is coming forth, nevertheless, a sum of
Rs.35,000/- is awarded to the claimant under that head.
14. Even otherwise, considering the nature of injuries, the
period of hospitalization and surgeries undergone, he would not have
7 of 8
FAO-583-2002 (O&M) -8-
been able to pursue his regular avocation for a long time. A sum of
Rs.35,000/- is awarded to him for loss of earning and other gains,
which he would have made if he had not been injured.
For loss of future earning, as discussed above, the claimant
has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 54% in his right
lower limb with shortening of right lower limb, in that way, he would
not be able to pursue his normal avocation and has suffered permanent
handicap. His age at the relevant time is said to be 27 years, Rs. 5 lacs
is awarded to him towards loss of future earning on account of
permanent disability. Under the head future medical expenses, further
a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to him.
15. Now coming to non-pecuniary damages, on account of
damages of pain suffering and trauma, a sum of Rs.45,000/- is
awarded. For loss of amenities that he would not be able to sit, run or
walk like a normal human being as he could do prior to the accident,
another sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded and towards loss of expectation
of life, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded. Total amount comes out to
Rs.9 lacs. Therefore, the compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs.9
lacs payable by all the three respondents jointly and severally with
interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of claim petition till actual
realization.
16. The appeal stands partly allowed accordingly.
27.01.2023 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
8 of 8
