JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. The judgment will dispose of F. A.F.O. No. 579 of 1989 (Dr. A.R. Rao v. Rajinder Kumar) and F.A.F.O. No. 685 of 1989 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dr. A.R. Rao) which have arisen out of the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, dated 12.1.1989, which, on a claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, had awarded a sum of Rs. 67,500/- with 12 per cent per annum interest as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 9.8.1987. For the purpose of judgment, the facts have been taken from F.A.F.O. No. 579 of 1989.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of these appeals are that on 9.8.1987 Ram Bhagat Singh, Ram Dayal jindal and Dr. A.R.Rao were traveling in Maruti van No. DBY 707 from Hissar to Chandigarh. The van was driven by Umed Singh, Respondent No. 2, which was owned by Rajinder Kumar, Respondent No. 1. The driver was plying the van at a very fast speed. At a little distance from Kaithal on Pehowa-Kaithal Road, the driver of the van lost its control. As a result thereof, the van swerved from the road and hit against a kikar tree and Ram Bhagat Singh and Ram Dayaljindal died on the spot whereas Dr. A.R.Rao sustained serious injuries.
3. The claimant claimed Rs. 4,65,000/- as compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal’), while disposing of the claim petition vide its award dated 12.1.1989, held that the claimant had suffered injuries in the road accident which had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of van No. DBY 707 by its driver Umed Singh, Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the nature of injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant had awarded a sum of Rs. 67,500/- in all.
4. Against the impugned award, two appeals have been preferred, one by the claimant, Dr. A.R. Rao, for enhancement of the compensation and another by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for setting aside the impugned award.
5. The Counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the claimant had not been awarded suitably for the injuries sustained by him and the permanent disability suffered by him.
6. Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal had erredin awarding compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for pain and suffering alone. The claimant had joined duty on 25.1.1988 and as such he was not entitled to any compensation for the subsequent period. Therefore, the compensation awarded being on the higher side is liable to be reduced.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file. I am convinced from the statement of Dr. A.R. Rao, AW 3, that owing to the accident, he suffered the fracture of shaft of left femur and the shaft of right humerus. This statement of the claimant stood corroborated by the prescription of injuries recorded on the card issued by the P.G.I, authorities, photostat copy of which is Exh. A.B. on the record. He remained in the P.G.I., Chandigarh, upto 2.12.1987 meaning thereby that the claimant was hospitalised for a period of three months. Being an old man of 53 years, the recovery of the claimant was very slow. He was neither able to walk without the help of a stick nor could he climb the stairs. The statement of Mr. Rao finds due corroboration from the version of Dr. R.K. Jindal, AW 4. According to this witness, the claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20 per cent of the whole body. This Doctor further opined that the disability suffered by the claimant could not be totally cured though it could be reduced to some extent with the passage of time.
8. In view of the nature of injuries sustained and permanent disability suffered by the claimant, I am convinced that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering is not sufficient which deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- on this count with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal had rightly awarded compensation on other counts and there is no scope for enhancing the same.
9. The award of the Tribunal is modified in the terms indicated above. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. No order as to costs.