JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. On July 11, 1985 bus No. PBP-3705 going from Barnala to Patiala overturned. The appellant received injuries. Ultimately his arm was amputated below the shoulder. His claim for compensation having been rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala, on the ground that it was not proved that he was travelling in the bus, he has filed the present appeal.
2. Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the claim and that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting it on the ground that certain relevant evidence had not been produced. The claim made on behalf of the appellant has, however, been controverted by Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. What is the evidence?
3. According to the claim petition submitted by the appellant before the Tribunal, he was born on April 4, 1944. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1367/- at the relevant time. On July 11, 1985 the accident had taken place at a distance of about 3 Kilometers from Dhanaula while the bus was going from Barnala to Patiala. He had remained in the hospital at Barnala and then at Ambala from July 11, 1985 to October 8, 1985. He-had claimed a compensation on account of permanent disability, suffering and pain, cost of the artificial limb and expenses etc. In the claim petition it was specifically mentioned that the Police had not registered the case but report No. 27 had been recorded in the Daily Diary Register maintained by the Police Station, Dhanaula. It was also stated that the bus had overturned “with its lower part in the upward direction.” The accident, according to the appellant, “was caused due to faulty machinery of the said bus and also for negligent driving by the driver.”
4. The claim made by the appellant was controverted.
5. The appellant produced Nirmal Rani, P.W.1. She produced his bed head ticket. Thereafter Dr. M.K. Gupta, who was working as a Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala City, in July, 1985, appeared as a witness. His statement has been recorded as A.W.1. He categorically stated that he had examined the appellant and recorded the injuries. In cross-examination he mentioned that when the injured met him “the arm was not amputated.” Dr. Amrik Singh, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, who was working at Civil Hospital, Barnala in July, 1985, appeared as P.W.2. He stated that Bachna appellant had been admitted with multiple injuries which “he was alleged to have got in a bus accident.” The original bed head ticket was also produced by him. During cross-examination he categorically stated that the injury “was a crushed injury and the arm was only (attached) by a tag of muscles and skin.” Constable Gurmit Singh appeared as P.W.3 and produced report No. 27 which had been recorded by Sub Inspector Sudesh Kumar on July 11, 1985. This report is on the record as Ex. PW3/A. The appellant himself appeared as P.W.4 and reiterated the factual position as taken by him in his claim petition.
6. The respondents led no evidence. Even the driver, who was a party in the case, did not get into the witness box to controvert the claim made by the appellant.
7. Besides the oral evidence, the documentary evidence consists of report No. 27 dated July 11, 1985. This report is based on the statement made by Malkiat Singh, driver of bus No. PBP-3705. It was stated by him that he was driving the bus from Ferozepur to Patiala. At 4.05 p.m. he had left Barnala for Patiala. When he was about 3 kilometers from Dhanaula, the pin, which holds the spring in position, broke down, on account of which the vehicle got out of control and it overturned. It was further mentioned that people had collected. They had taken the injured persons out of the bus and removed them to the hospital at Dhanaula. He further stated that he was not at fault.
8. The second piece of documentary evidence consists of the bed head tickets. The first of these tickets is dated July 11, 1985. There is an OPD ticket also pasted on the inside of the cover page. In the brief history it has been recorded that the patient was admitted with multiple injuries, which he alleged to have got in bus accident. On examination it was found that his pulse rate was 100. Blood pressure was recorded as 60mm Hg -? Systolic. With regard to another injury it was noted that the left arm only attached by tag of skin and muscle.” The second bed head ticket is dated July 12. 1985. Diagnosis has been recorded as multiple injuries. It is further recorded that the patient was alleged “to have sustained injuries in a Road Accident at Dhanaula…..was taken to Civil Hospital where Police was informed on 11.07.1985 but MLC not done and patient came here in this Civil Hospital, Ambala City, afternoon i.e., at 5.30 p.m. on 12.07.1995.” Following observation has been recorded:-
“Compound # Lt. upper arm. Whole of the Lt. upper limb below the # is gangrenous and foul smell is there.”
On the same day the amputation was carried out. The appellant had remained admitted in the hospital till October 8,1985.
9. The short question is: Was the appellant not entitled to the grant of any compensation?
Learned Tribunal has rejected the claim as:-
(1) There is not an iota of evidence to establish that the accident in question took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of bus No. 3705.
(2) The appellant did not “summon his leave application from the concerned office or…..adduce some other evidence to prove the fact of his being on leave on July 11, 1985.”
(3) No eye-witness of the accident in question was examined.
(4) It was also found that the claimant could not derive any advantage or benefit from the document (Ex. AW3/A).
10. On examination of the evidence it is clear that bus No. PBP 3705 had overturned. The report at Ex. AW3/A has been recorded by a public officer in the discharge of his duties. This report is based on the statement of Malkiat Singh, who was the driver of the bus. The report clearly shows that for some mechanical break down the bus had overturned and the passengers had received injuries. The report has been ignored by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the time of the recording was mentioned as 11 a.m. This was merely a typographical error. In case this report is read along with other hospital record, it becomes clear that the accident had taken place in the evening and that the report must have been recorded at 11 p.m. and not at 11 a.m. The report clearly corroborates the appellant’s claim that he had suffered injuries in the accident and that he was admitted to the hospital thereafter. The hospital record shows that the injury of his left arm was very serious and that the arm was only attached with the body by a tag of muscle and skin. The oral testimony of A.Ws. 1 and 2 corroborates the documentary evidence contained in the bed head ticket. When the oral and documentary evidence are read together, the irresistible inference is that the appellant had suffered the injury while travelling in the bus and his arm having been virtually detached from the rest of the body, it had to be amputated. Still further the appellant having, been injured and none of his family members being with him, he cannot be denied compensation only because no report for initiation of criminal proceedings was lodged. In fact, it is clear from the record that the police had recorded a report. Since the bus belonged to a Governmental Corporation the possibility of the case having not been registered by the Police, to save the driver and also the Corporation, cannot be ruled out. More than that the factum of the injury and the appellant having lost his arm it is clear that his arm has been actually amputated at the level of the shoulder.
11. Another fact which deserves mention is that the driver of the bus, who was even a party to the case, did not have the courage to stand up in the wit- ness-box and to support the claim made on behalf of the respondents. Why did he feel shy of getting into the witness-box? Why did he not appear and support the claim as made by the Corporation or even in his own written (sic) Why did the Corporation not produce any oral evidence with regard to the factual position? There is no answer on the record.
12. It is true that the appellant did not formally prove the factum of his being on leave from the office. Yet his own statement to the effect that he had suffered the injury in the accident was rejected by the Court without any reasonable basis. This was done despite the fact that the respondents had not produced any evidence to show that the claim as made by the appellant was not correct.
13. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. These are, consequently, set aside. It is held that the appellant had received injuries in the accident. Ultimately, his arm was amputated. He was entitled to be compensated for the loss, pain and suffering as also the expenses incurred by him on account of treatment etc.
14. Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, submits that there is no evidence to indicate that the appellant had suffered any loss. Thus, he should not be awarded any compensation. The contention is wholly fallacious and cannot be sustained. Loss of limb reduces the quality of life. It leaves a permanent handicap. Besides that it is the admitted position that the appellant had remained admitted in a hospital for more than two months. Still further, he would have to incur substantial expenditure on an artificial limb.
15. In view of the above, it appears that a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/would meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the dale of the petition till the date of payment.
16. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.