FAO No. 984 of 1987 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.984 of 1987
Decided on : 19-11-2008
Mangal Chand Singhvi ....Appellant
VERSUS
Balwinder Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr.Jasbeer Singh, Advocate for
Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent no.3.
MAHESH GROVER, J
This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Narnaul dated 28.2.1987.
In an accident which took place on 21.9.85, the appellant is said
to have suffered injuries. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-
(Rs.5,000/- for injuries, pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- for damage to
the car) alongwith an interest of 12% per annum from the date of filing of
the petition till the date of its realisation. Dr. K.C.Goyal, PW 2 examined
the appellant on 26.9.85 for the first time. His diagnosis and conclusion
was that there was contusion head injury. On physical examination, he was
found to have crust on the bridge of nose and heamotema on right eye and
also crust on right fronto partial region of the head. He has also testified
that the appellant suffered atleast 20% to 25% disability in the vision and
FAO No. 984 of 1987 2
mental status and there is very little chance of further improvement. Prior
to this on 21.9.85, the appellant was examined by Dr. B.K.Sharma, PW1,
who found the following injuries:-
“1. A clean cut skin deep would on bridge of nose just
in middle at base with oozing of blood.
2. A pentrating wound of 0.5 cm on front of perital
region scalp deep wound with fresh bleeding.
The nature of the injuries was simple caused within
above six hours and caused by sharp weapon.”
There thus appears to be contradiction between the report of Dr.
B.K. Sharma, Medical Officer, ESI, Dispensary, Dharuhera and Dr.
K.C.Goyal, Medical Practitioner, Pali, Rajasthan.
Considering the fact that in the first instance, when the appellant
was treated by a Doctor of the Government Hospital who has opined that
the injuries were simple this Court is inclined to accept the testimony of this
doctor and reject the testimony of PW2 Dr. K.C.Goyal, for the reason that
the testimony of PW2 is un-inspiring. There is no conclusive proof of his
disability. This witness has also testified that the appellant was being
treated for myopia prior to the accident.
However, considering the fact that the appellant has suffered
some injury in the accident, it is deemed appropriate in the interest of justice
to direct that the appellant be held entitled to a compensation of Rs.
15,000/- for the injuries. This amount shall be over and above the amount
that has been awarded on account of damage to the vehicle. Therefore, the
appellant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith
FAO No. 984 of 1987 3
interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till
the date of its realisation.
The liability to pay the amount shall be the same as has been
determined by the Tribunal.
The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms and the
award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
November 19, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge