Aman Dahiya, Advocate vs Surinder Jain and Others

Amarjit Chaudhary, J.—Shri Asian Dahiya had filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, hereinafter referred to as the ''Tribunal'' for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with 12% interest.

Being dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

The background which led to the filing of the claim application is that on 10-8-1983 the appellant after attending Court work was proceeding to Panchkula on his scooter bearing registration No. PBV 2663 with Shri Raj Pal Singh, Advocate, who was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter which was being driven by Aman Dahiya, appellant. When he approached the crossing of Sectors 7, 8, 17 and 18 of Panchkula, he observed a jeep bearing registration No. CHA 2542 coming from the opposite direction which took a wrong side and a result of which the appellant by way of abundant caution stopped his scooter, but the driver of the jeep Surinder Jain, respondent No. 1, who at that time was talking with the other occupants of the jeep, in a rash and negligent manner struck the jeep with the stationary scooter which resulted in causing grievous injuries to him as well as to Rajpal Singh. The scooter was badly damaged. Aman Dahiya and Rajpal Singh were taken to General Hospital On x-ray examination, it was found that Aman Dahiya had suffered a fracture on his left leg and some injuries on the body. The appellant''s fractured leg was put under plaster. He remained admitted in the hospital from 10-8-1983 to 18 11-1983 and further remained confined to bed till 21-12-983.

It is the further case of the appellant that he had to use the crutches while visiting hospital for medical check besides taking assistance of attendant As a result of confinement to bed, the monthly earning has reduced considerably. The appellant has suffered permanent disability as there is shortening of leg.

It is also the case of the appellant that the limping of his left leg has resulted in the incapacitating of other physical jobs and family activities. Apart from this, he experiences pain and is unable to stand constantly while arguing cases in Court. All these developments have caused mental agony.

The matter was contested by the respondents.

After examining the matter, the Tribunal returned a finding that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. CHA 2542. driven by Surinder Jain respondent No. 1. Dr Gurcharan Singh was examined as AW9. According to the Doctor, Aman Dahiya, might have spent Rs. 500/- on x-ray and medicines etc, He further deposed that in the accident cases, generally a very nourishing diet is prescribed. This witness farther deposed that Aman Dahiya was advised not to put weight and take rest for about two weeks. According to this witness, Aman Dahiya''s leg was shortened by half an inch as a result of road accident and that he shall not be able to run fast. It is revealed from the evidence of this witness that the appellant would suffer permanent disability for the remaining period of his life, and permanent disability can, however, be corrected by doing operation and by shortening the other leg.

The learned Tribunal on the consideration of the medical evidence, awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 40,000/- with 12% interest to the claimant-appellant.

Mr. Dahiya appearing in person has contended that in view of the statement of Dr. Gurcharan Singh who had stated that his disability is of permanent nature and other connected factors viz. loss of income, special diet and personal discomforts, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The appellant claims for the repair of the scooter which has totally damaged in the accident.

In the instant case, the occurrence of the accident and the mannerism in which the appellant sustained injuries is not in dispute. The finding of negligence recorded against the Driver does not call for any interference in this appeal.

The question which requires consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation payable to the appellant-claimant keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by him and other connected factors.

Relying heavily on Swatantra Kumar Lamba and Anr. v. Sheila Didi 1987 92 P.L.R. 1., the appellant Aman Dahiya had prayed that the same compensation be awarded to him as awarded to the claimant Arun Nehra. In my view, the ratio of the decision rendered in the aforesaid case cannot be applied to the case in hand. The claimant in that case had incurred heavy expenses on medical treatment. His movements of ankle were restricted and densification was limited to half. The claimant could not attend to his professional work for 10 months As such the claimant in that case was awarded Rs. 5600/- for medical expenses and transportation, Rs 4800/- for special diet, Rs. 0,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 96,000/- for loss of earning capacity, Rs. 40,000/- for pain, suffering and loss of pleasures of life. In the instant case, the appellant''s confinement to bed was only for three months. Thereafter, he did not get any treatment. The appellant has not been able to prove that he had incurred huge amount on medical treatment and transportation or there was loss of professional income. The other important aspect of the matter is that the claimant in the present case was a part-time Lecturer in the Law College and he was deprived of his income for the period during he did not work.

In view of the statement of Gurcharan Singh, (AW-9) that the appellant''s leg was shortened by half an inch as a result of road accident and he would suffer permanent disability for the remaining period of his life, Aman Dahiya, appellant, is awarded Rs. 75,000/- lumpsum as compensation with 12% interest in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

No costs.