AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal, by the State of Himachal Pradesh, arises out of the award, dated 17-4-1982 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi. By this award, a sum of Rs, 5358/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of the petition till payment.
The facts, in brief, are that Shri Om Parkash Kuashik was driving his Motor Cycle bearing No. DEW-116 (now HPU-966) on 2-4-1981. He was coming from Shamshi to wards Kullu. One Shri Devinder Nath was the pillion ridder. Near Gandhi Nagar, the Motor Cycle was stopped on the extreme left side of the road at about 9.45 a.m. Ramesh Chand, driver of Jeep No. HPU- 594, came from the opposite side. He was driving the jeep rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road and collided with the Motor Cycle of the claimant. As a result of this .accident; the claimant sustained personal injuries. A petition for compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- was moved before the Tribunal.
The case of the Respondents, inter-alia, has been that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by their driver and the claimant had not suffered in the expectancy of life and earning ability due to this accident It has been stated that the accident was due to the act of the claimant himself, besides, the assertion that the claimant had a learner''s licence only with him.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
Whether Ramesh Chand was driving Jeep No. HPU-594 rashly and negligently as alleged and thereby caused injuries to the Petitioner as alleged? OPP
If issue No. 1 is proved, to what compensation the Petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP
Whether the Petitioner has a licence to drive motor cycle HPU-966 OPP
Relief.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently and the claimant received personal injuries as a result of the same. Oh the point of Compensation, Rs. 5358 were awarded and issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the claimant and against the Appellants.
Going to the evidence, it is clear that the claimant was driving his Motor Cycle while going from Shamshi to Kulhi and Shri Devinder Nath was He pillion rider. The accident took place at a time when the Motor Cycle was parked on the left side of the road behind a curve to check some sound that was a coming from its rear tyre. It was at this stage that the offending vehicle came at a faster speed. It was being driven rashly and negligently and came to the wrong side of the road and collided with the stationary Motor Cycle. The version of Shri Devwder Nath (P. W. 3) is to the same effect. Investigating Officer Shri Yashbir Pathania (P.W. 6) has also proved the factum of accident. He investigated the case. He has proved the site plan (Ex. PB). Perusalof the same indicates that the offending vehicle was on the wrong side of the road.
Shri M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, argues that the statement of this witness that there were no skid marks on the road, indicates that the jeep was not being driven rashly. I am not impressed by this submission. It is not necessary that in all cases of rash and negligent driving, there have to be skid marks on the road as the same depend on number of other factors and the absence of the, same in this case does not eliminate the evidence pointing out clearly that the jeep was. being driven rashly and negligently and that too on the wrong side of the road. The statement of the jeep driver, Shri Ramesh Chand that he was going on the left side of the road and the Motor Cycle, coming from the opposite direction, in the middle of the road, struck against his vehicle, cannot, at all, be "believed in view of the factual position existing at the spot and the evidence pointing out his guilt. The conclusion of the Tribunal on this aspect is correct and the same is up-held.
The second submission of the parties relates to the quantum of compensation. On behalf of the State it is argued by Shri M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, that no compensation is payable to the claimant and in case it is held that the same is payable, in that case, the amount already given is to excessive arbitrary and unreasonable and so de serves to be reduced considerably in view of the minor injuries suffered by the claimant and no loss to his earning capacity on that account.
Shri. M.L. Sharma, on the other hand, presses for the increase of this amount which, he says, is shockingly low looking to the nature of the injuries, shock and pain suffered by the claimant and number of days he had to spend in hospital and remain on leave for 41/2 months. Claim for spending on an attendant at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month has also been made and it has been asserted that the Tribunal was not justified in disallowing this claim in view of the fact that the same was incur red and evidence to this effect was not rebutted by the State.
The claimant has examined Dr. Roshan Lal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kullu, (P.W. 1), who states that the claimant remained admitted in the hospital from 2-4-1981 to 27-4-1981. According to him, the claimant had suffered a fracture of calcancum He has denied the suggestion that this fracture amounted to a permanent disability. This was not the only injury suffered by the claimant.
According to Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta (P.W. 8), who conducted the medical examination of the claimant, the following, injuries were found on his persons
An abrasion of size"31/2 x 1, vertically placed on mid region on anterior aspect of right leg, fresh blood oozing out of it.
An abrasion of size 1"X1/2", on anterior aspect of right leg just above right ankle pint, fresh blood oozing pot of it.
A contused lacerated wound of size 3" x 2" exposing the underlying muscle and tendons on the dorsal side of right foot just below right ankle joint. A tarsal bone of lateral part of right foot found fractured. Fresh blood coming out of the wound.
He further states that the claimant remained under the, supervision of a Medical Specialist or a Surgical Specialist in the district Hospital Kullu. According to him, there were; remote chances of the claimant incurring a disability or stiffness of permanent nature.
The evidence, on this aspect, indicates that the claimant may not have suffered permanent disability or stiffness of permanent nature, however, he sustained three more injuries in addition to this fracture He remained admitted in the hospital from 2:4-1981 to 27-4-1981. He was obviously under server pain and shock during this time and thereafter for a period of about months, he remained on leave. It has been contended by Shri M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General that the claimant did. not suffer monetarily on account of this accident. That may be so, as there is no evidence pointing out such a loss.
Now, the question is whether the lump sum compensation to the extent of Rs. 5000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation Shri M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, refers to 1976 ACJ 318 (Ishwari Yatayat Cooperative Society Ltd., and Ors. v. Umrao Singh) and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Om Prakash Gupta and Others ) for the reduction of compensation. On the other hand, Shri M.L. Sharma made a reference to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Niranjan Ambalal Patel and Others, Ayub Yusuf Bhai Kbarawala and Another Vs. Prabhudas Hiralal Prajapati and Others, and 1981 ACJ 348 (Union of India v. Abdul Rehman and Ors.). What is just compensation, cannot be answered straight way It can be said to be the monetary compensation for the personal injuries sustained by a victim in a motor accident. Justness of compensation has been a complex problem being faced by a court while awarding compensation in such like cases. It is true that monetary compensation can never be considered to be equivalent to the fife lost or equivalent to the injuries and sufferings undergone by the victim. However, courts have made every effort innovating new principles to award just compensation to the claimant. There are no cut and dried .principles nor can they be imprisoned in a strait jacket formula. Judicial precedents vary from case to case: Therefore, the task ultimately is of the Court to arrive at just compensation awardable in a case. It is for the Court to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of each case and draw assistance from numerous judicial pronouncements and principles enunciated therein and from books on damages by celebrated authoirs.
Looking to the facts of the present case, the compensation amount appears to be quite arbitrary and unreasonable since it is inadequate and so deserves to be increased, looking to the nature of the injuries, shock and pain suffered by the claimant for number of months and other enjoyments of life. Interest of justice would be served in case this amount is enchant by Rs. 5,000/- inanition to what has already been awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant will be entitled to interest on this amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. Cross-Objections No. 160 of 1982 are also decided to the aforesaid extent. Costs on parties.