General Manager vs Sikander Singh

Rakesh Garg, J.—As per the case of respondent No. 1, he suffered injuries on 10.09.2000 in a motor vehicular accident which took place between a private bus No. RJ-31-P/0217 (in which he was travelling) and Punjab Roadways bus bearing registration No. PB-12-C-9071 belonging to the appellant (herein after referred to as the ''offending bus'') which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and struck against the private bus in which the claimant was travelling. Due to impact, several passengers of both the buses received injuries. The claimant had also received multiple serious injuries. He was firstly taken to P.G.I. Chandigarh from where he was referred to Oswal Mohan Dai Hospital, Ludhiana, where he remained for six months as indoor patient and was still under treatment. Operation was conducted and a plate was fitted in his right leg. The claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% and has become crippled for the rest of his life. He was unable to walk or sit properly and cannot do any work. He also suffered a great mental, physical and financial loss due to injuries received in the accident and thus, he was entitled to the compensation.

The claim petition was contested by the appellants denying the allegations. According to them, the private bus in which the claimant was allegedly travelling, was going from Chandigarh to Sri Ganganagar and not to Patiala as alleged and thus, the claimant has concocted a false story. The private bus was plying on the date of occurrence of accident in illegal manner and did not have a valid route permit. The route permit of the said bus, (driver of which had also died in accident), was from Sangria to Malout. Even the said driver was not having any valid and legal driving licence at the time of accident. In fact, the driver of the offending bus was driving the bus on the left side of the road on its correct side at normal speed and the accident did not take place due to negligence of the offending bus. In fact, the driver of the private bus became confused suddenly noticing the car coming from the opposite side and while avoiding the mishap, he lost control and collided with the bus of appellants. A wrong FIR has been registered against the driver with regard to accident in connivance with the local police. Even as per the report of the Committee appointed by the Director State Transport to look into the cause of accident of the offending bus, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the private bus in which claimant was travelling and not due to fault of driver of the offending bus. Thus, claim petition was liable to be dismissed.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

Whether Sikander Singh received injuries in an accident dated 10.9.2000 caused by the driver of bus No. PB-12-C-9071 while driving the same rashly and negligently? OPP

Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

To what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to recover? If so from whom? OPP

Relief.

After considering the evidence on record, Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus by its driver. No evidence was produced by the appellants to prove issue No. 2 and thus, the same was decided against the appellants. Under issue No. 3, keeping in view the multiple injuries received by the claimant and the period he remained in the hospital and the fact that the claimant was operated upon and a shaft/plate was fitted in his right leg and the other facts placed on record which includes shortening of his leg and permanent disability to the extent of 30% and restriction of movement of the hips of the claimant, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimant by way of compensation to be paid to the claimant by the appellants jointly and severally.

Aggrieved from the award of the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the instant appeal challenging on the ground of quantum only.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contented that the Tribunal has erred at law while awarding compensation to the claimant on the basis of medical bills Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-44 and the disability certificate Ex. P-1 as the same have not been proved on record legally and thus, there being no legal evidence on record, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed and the claimant was not entitled to any compensation.

At this stage, it may be noticed that the claimant appeared into witness box as PW-1 and also examined Sukhdev Singh (PW-2) and Dr. Navtejpal Singh (PW-3) to support his case. In his statement, PW-1, stated that he received multiple injuries on his body in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driven by its driver. He further stated that right leg was fractured and he also received injuries on the chest and on other parts of the body. He was taken to PGI Chandigarh. From PGI, he was referred to Mohan Dai Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana and he remained admitted in the said hospital for six months. His leg was operated upon and a shaft was fitted in his right leg. He spent Rs. 1,75,000/- on his treatment. He further stated in his statement that he cannot stand for long time as his leg was also shortened. He was issued the disability certificate from the office of C.M.O. Ropar. Dr. Navtej Pal Singh (PW-3) in his statement stated that he examined the claimant on 16.5.2001 and found the disability on his body. He had post traumatic (fracture S/T with fracture shaft femur right) with restricted hip movements with fixed flexion deformity of 15 degree at hip point with shortening of right lower limb by 1" and the disability was found to be permanent to the extent of 30%.

At this stage, it may further be noticed that there is no rebuttal evidence produced on behalf of the claimant to controvert the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 on record produced by the appellants. In fact, the statements of the claimant PW-1 and Dr. Navtej Pal Singh (PW-3) have remained un-rebutted.

In view thereof, even if the medical bills were not proved in accordance with law, it cannot be said that the claimant has not suffered the injuries as stated by him. In fact, the factum of multiple injuries received by the claimant as stated by him and corroborated by PW-3 have not been disputed by the appellants. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, this Court finds no merit in this appeal against the impugned award.

No other point was argued.

Dismissed.