FAO No. 2379 of 1990 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 2379 of 1998
Date of decision May 31, 2011
Navjot Singh ....Appellant
Versus
Kuldip Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
K. Kannan, J (oral)
1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the
petition claiming compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident.
The contention of the petitioner was that when he was going on his motor
cycle on 30.3.1994 along with the D.C.road, Hoshiarpur. When he had
reached at a road junction, he stopped at the red signal and when there
was a green signal, he started when the jeep driven by the first respondent
coming from the opposite direction drove against him and crushed his leg.
The written statement was one of the denial of accident itself but at the
time of trial, the appellant was cross examined on the aspect of when he
started the vehicle at the signal. RW-1 gave evidence to the effect that
when he reached the Government College Chowk a motor cyclist came
from the side of the Government College and struck against his jeep. His
contention that he was driving his jeep on the left side of the road and at
the time when he proceeded there was a green signal. It was the motor
cyclist who had come from the Government College side when there was
still a red light. The Tribunal purported to undertake a minute perusal of
the evidence, and the Court observed that the counsel for the claimant
when he cross examined the respondent suggested to him that there was
FAO No. 2379 of 1990 2
no green or red light “but there was a twinkling light of yellow colour.” I do
not see how there is a contradiction to the appelllant’s own case. It is one
thing to state that the appellant had started after stopping at the signal
when there was green light to go but quite another to make a suggestion to
the respondent that there was a twinkling of amber on his side, though he
he was himself contending that there was a green light to proceed and
there was red light in the direction where the petitioner was to proceed. A
case where there was admittedly a collision and the appellant had injuries
on his leg could not have been thrown over board on realistic appreciation
of evidence by the Tribunal. I set aside the finding and hold the driver of the
jeep was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal must have seen that
the respondent was suggesting up a plea of no accident but he did not take
courage to stand by his version at the trial and was only trying to explain
that he was not guilty but the motor cyclist was. I would find no virtue in the
defence to discard the appellant’s version.
2. As regards the quantum, the petitioner had
produced evidence to show that he had fairly a long period of
hospitalization and the injuries with serious soft issue damage required
reconstruction by surgical reduction of the fracture and by skin grafting. He
had 83 days of hospitalization at various times and had undergone seven
surgeries. The doctors who treated him were examined as PW-2 and PW-
3. The medical bills showed that the accident took place on 20.3.1994 and
he had been taking treatment extending up to 17.10.1995 for nearly a year
and six months. For the various phases of hospitalization, I would make
provision for attendant charges, special diet and transportation at
`10,000/-, `5,000/- and `10,000/- respectively. The doctors had assessed
him for disability at 50% but stated that he required support while walking
by crutches which I would understand as a temporary disability. The
permanent disability could have a bearing to difficulty in walking in long
FAO No. 2379 of 1990 3
stretches due to stiffness in the ankle and soft issue damage. I have no
evidence to suggest that 50% functional disability in the leg could have any
serious impact in his future earning skills. For prolonged hospitalization and
surgery, I will provide for `25,000/- towards pain and suffering and towards
the 50% disability, for the accident has taken place in the year 1994, I will
provide for `50,000/- which I would hold as going towards the loss of
amenties. The petitioner claimed that he has lost one year of study since
he had suffered accident in March with impending exams for which I would
estimate `25,000/- as the resultant loss. The over all compensation will
be as `3,29,500/- tabulated below:-
Age 30.3.1994 to
17.10.1995
Occupation
Claimants
S.No. Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court
1 Medicines `2,04,500/-
2 Attendant charges `10,000/-
3 Special diet `5,000/-
4 Pain and suffering `25,000/-
5 Transport `10,000/-
6 Disability 50%
7 Loss of amenities `50,000/-
Loss of year in `25,000/-
8 studies
Total `3,29,500/-
3. The amount awarded by the Tribunal shall carry
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of payment. The liability shall be on the respondents jointly and severally.
The award is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above terms.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
May 31, 2011
arching