Kailash Chand Jain vs Gurdip Singh and Others

H.S. Bedi, J.—Kailash Chand the appellant was coming from the side of Gagret on 3rd April 1985, and at about 6.30 p.m. on his motor-cycle when he reached in the area of village Saleran, he was run over by the front tyre of Bus bearing registration No. PJU-8651 being driven by its driver Gurdip Singh-respondent No. 1. He was, thereafter, removed to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where his right leg was amputated in order to save his life. The appellant, thereafter filed a claim petition seeking compensation on the ground that the bus in question had been driven rashly and negligently by its driver and this had led to the accident. The applicant also claimed that at the time of the accident, his income had been Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and that he had spent a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on his medical treatment and, accordingly, claimed compensation of Rs. three lacs.

On notice, the respondents filed their written statements and it was pleaded therein that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the applicant who was driving motor cycle at a very high speed.

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

(1) Whether respondent No.1 Gurdip Singh caused a vehicular accident on 3.4.1985 in the area of village Saleron on Hoshiarpur-Bhawain road by rashly and negligently driving the bus No. PJU-8651? OPP.

(2) Whether the claimant received injuries in the aforesaid accident? OPP.

(3) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation on account of injuries received in the vehicular accident ? If so to what amount and from which of the respondent? OPP.

(4) Relief.

To support his claim, the applicant produced PW-1 Dr. Rachhpal Singh, Orthopaedic Specialist, who stated that the applicant had been admitted in. the Emergency department of Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur on 3rd April, 1985 at 7.20 p.m. and after giving supportive treatment, he had been operated upon at 10 p.m. the same night and his right leg above the knee joint had been amputated which had led to 85% permanent disability. He further stated that the applicant had been discharged from the hospital on 25th April, 1985 but was required to visit the hospital subsequently for follow up treatment. The Doctor also stated that he had advised the applicant to get an artificial limb from Jaipur or from Pune. The Tribunal also relied upon the evidence of PW-2 Kailash Chand himself and on PW-3 Chaman Lal, to come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving by Gurdip Singh the bus driver. The Tribunal then went on to the question of compensation and came to the conclusion that there had been no decrease in the income in the hands of the applicant after this accident, but that as he had suffered disability to the extent of 85% on account of the accident, he was entitled to Rs. 20,000/- for physical disability, Rs. 5,000/- towards medical treatment and Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering that he had suffered making a total sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed claiming a higher compensation.

I have heard Mr. Sarwan Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing in support of this appeal and have gone through the record.

Mr. Sarwan Singh has urged that the compensation awarded to the appellant was wholly inadequate in the light of the fact that the Doctor has opined that he had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85%. He has urged that in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, Chander Kumar Pahwa v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1996(1) A.C.J. 537, compensation of Rs. four lakh was due to the appellant.

I have gone through the judgment stated by the learned counsel and am of the opinion that facts of that case have absolutely no relevance to the facts of the case in hand. In the cited case, the nature of injuries, the period of hospitalisation, the medical treatment that the appellant was required to undertake and that he had become a physical and mental wreck had influenced the Court in awarding compensation of Rs. four lakh. I am, however, of the opinion that the sum of Rs. 30,000/-granted to the appellant is wholly inadequate and some enhancement is certainly called for. It cannot be ignored that he had been hospitalised for about 25 days and during this period, he would have undergone physical and mental pain and also incurred substantial expenses. It is equally true that no broad principle can be laid down in such cases in determining the amount of compensation and a rule of the thumb has to be applied in the light of the facts of each case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- on account of his disability a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards pain and suffering and further a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards his medical treatment as compensation as his case is that he had spent this amount as he had visited Jaipur and Pune for the purpose of securing an artificial limb. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the total compensation that ought to be paid to the appellant would come to Rs. 1,20,000/-. The appellant would also be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition to the date of actual payment.