Kanji vs Chohal Singh and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will also dispose of F.A.O. No. 227 of 1981, as both these appeals have arisen out of the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, (hereinafter called the Tribunal), dated September 4,1980.

Both the claimants Kanji and his father Babu Ram were travelling in the Haryana Roadways bus, No. HYA 1629, Ambala Depot, driven by Chohal Singh from Delhi to Ambala City, on October 30, 1976 Due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus by him, it struck against truck No. HRH 9471, which was standing parked on its left side. In the said accident, these two claimants and others, suffered injuries. Both the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, as compensation, on account of the injuries suffered by them in the said accident. According to them, each of them was earning Rs. 600/- as a hawker by selling utensils etc. Though in the original claim petitions it was stated that they were entitled to much more compensation on account of their loss of earning, pain and suffering etc., yet they claimed only Rs. 10,000/- each, as compensation, as they were not in a position to pay the necessary Court-fee. The claim petition was contested on behalf of the State of Haryana. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Chohal Singh, respondent No. 1 ?

(2) Whether the claimant received injuries in the accident in question ?

(3) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled ?

(4) Relief.

Under issue No. 1, the Tribunal found that it was clearly established on record that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by Chohal Singh, respondent. Issue No. 2 was also held in favour of the claimants. During the pendency of the claim petitions, both the claimants sought amendments of their claim petitions. In the application filed by Babu Ram, claimant, it was stated that claim for Rs. 10,000/- was filed on his behalf because of his financial difficulties with respect to the payment of Court-fee though he was entitled to much more compensation. It was further stated that he had obtained income certificate from the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Ambala, for the exemption of Court-fee under law as his income was below the prescribed limit. Thus, according to him, he was entitled to claim Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him resulting into his permanent disability, loss of earnings etc. Similarly in the application filed on behalf of Kanji, claimant, he claimed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/- by way of the amendment of the claim petition, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal did not allow the proposed amendments on the grounds that it was difficult to hold that the financial condition of the claimants was not sound or that their income was less than Rs. 2,400/- per annum at the time of their filing of the claim petition The income certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, and filed by them, were disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that they did not bear any date. Under issue No. 3, the Tribunal found that Kanji, claimant, aged 22 years, was entitled to a sum of Rs. 32,000/- as detailed below:

(1) Compensation on account of permanent disability to the extent of 50 per cent. Rs. 27,000/- (2) Compensation on account of medicines and other treatment Rs. 5,000/- ------------ Total Rs. 32,000/-

In the case of Babu Ram, claimant, aged 48, the Tribunal found that he bad sustained permanent disability to the extent of 20 per cent. He was found to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,240/- as compensation, as detailed below:

(1) compensation on account of his disability to the extent of 20 per cent. Rs. 8,640/- (2) compensation on account of medicines and other treatment Rs. 1,600/- ----------- Total Rs. 10,240/-

After determining the said amounts as the compensation payable to the claimants, it allowed only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the claimants as compensation, as both of them had claimed only Rs. 10,000/- each as such in their claim petitions. Interest thereon was allowed at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petitions till realisation.

The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the amendment of the claim petitions, as prayed for by the appellants, should have been allowed by the Tribunal because it was stated in the main claim petitions itself that though they were entitled to claim much more compensation, yet they had claimed only Rs. 10,000/- each as compensation because they were not in a position to pay the necessary Court-fee due to their financial difficulties. Later on, in view of the notification issued by the, Haryana Government, the claimants were able to obtain the necessary certificates of their annual incomes and, thus, filed the applications for amendment of the claim petitions. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the proposed amendments should have been allowed by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the said applications. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jai Singh v. Col. N.S. Subramaniam 1982 Punj LR 457.

I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. As regards the amendment of the claim petitions, in the applications for amendment itself, the claimants reiterated that they had filed the claim petitions only for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each because of financial difficulty of payment of Court-fee for the larger amounts to which they were otherwise entitled. Since they had obtained income certificates from the Collector, concerned, for claiming exemption of the Court-fee payable under law, they may be allowed to amend the claim petitions so as to enable them to claim larger amount of compensation. In the reply to the said applications, filed on behalf of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Ambala, this was never denied that necessary certificates had been obtained. What was stated in paragraph 3 of the reply to the said applications was:

Para No. 3 of the application is not within the knowledge of answering respondent and hence the same is denied for want of knowledge.

In these circumstances and in view of the income certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, the amendments as prayed for by the claimants should have been allowed by the Tribunal. The approach of the Tribunal in this behalf was wholly wrong and misconceived. It was held by the Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh''s case (supra), that the claims Tribunal has power to allow amendment of the claims applications at any time whether such an application is made within the period of limitation or after the expiry of period of limitation. Where an application is made after the expiry of the period of limitation, then the Tribunal must require the party asking for amendment to show sufficient cause and in the event of being satisfied that sufficient cause exists, the Tribunal would be well within its jurisdiction to allow the amendment after the period of limitation. In the present case, since both the claimants had obtained the certificates from the Collector concerned, it was a sufficient ground to allow necessary amendments of the claims petitions.

The learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that Kanji, claimant, suffered serious injuries in the accident as both of his legs were fractured, P.W. 8 Dr. R.S. Bawa, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr. Karam Singh Nursing Home, Amritsar, stated in his examination-in-chief that Kanji was operated on October 9, 1976, by him and amputation below knee on the left side was done. Again on November 18, 1976, due to some infection in the wound curretage of wound of amputation stump was done. On December 1, 1976, he was operated on his left femur. He was re-admitted on March 11, 1977, for some thread infection in the amputation stump which was removed on March 12,1977. According to this witness, the patient was disabled to the extent of 50 per cent, on account of the amputation of leg. To the same effect is the testimony of the claimant who had appeared in the witness-box himself as P.W. 3. He stated that he remained admitted to the hospital for about three months. Both of his legs got fractured in the accident and one of the legs had to be amputated. He claimed his income to be Rs. 600/- per month by selling utensils as a hawker. The Tribunal held only Rs. 300/- per month as his income. Half of it; (there being permanent disability to the extent of 50 per cent in his case) i e. Rs. 150/- per month was taken to be the Joss suffered by him due to the accident. By applying a multiplier of 15 (fifteen), it determined the amount of compensation to be Rs. 27,000/- on account of the loss of income and his permanent disability.

So far as the income of Kanji, claimant, is concerned, he claimed it to be Rs. 600/- per month in his examination-in-chief. There was no rebuttal to the same, nor any question was put to him in his cross-examination in this behalf. In any case, his income can safely be taken to be Rs. 400/-per month. He having suffered disability to the extent of 50 per cent. In the accident, be is entitled to claim Rs. 200/- per month on account of the loss of earning. It comes to Rs. 2,400/- per year. He was only 20 years of age at the time of the accident. He has a wife and a child living. That being so, in his case, a multiplier of 20 (twenty) would meet the ends of justice. So, he will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,000/- on account of the loss of earnings and pain and sufferings. In addition, he will also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of his medical expenses and treatment. Thus, he will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 53,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application, instead of 6 per cent per annum, as allowed by the Tribunal, till realisation.

As regards the claim of Babu Ram, claimant, the Tribunal determined his income to be Rs. 450/- per month. Taking the disability to the extent of 20 per cent suffered by him in the accident, his monthly loss of earning was held to be Rs. 90/-. By applying a multiplier of 8 (eight), he was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,640/- on account of the loss of earnings and paid and sufferings. In addition a sum of Rs. 1,600/- was also allowed by the Tribunal towards medicines and his treatment Thus, he was held to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,240/- in all, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation.

Babu Ram, injured, was 50 years of age at the time of the accident. I am of the considered opinion that on the facts and circumstances of this case, a multiplier of 8 (eight) as determined by the Tribunal was to inadequate, and that the multiplier of 12 (twelve) will meet the ends of justice. Thus, on account of the loss of earnings and pain and sufferings, Babu Ram, claimant, will be entitled to a sum of Rs 12,960/-. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs 1,600/- also on account of his medical expenses and treatment, as already noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. The claimant shall also be entitled to the same on that account. Thus, he will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,560/- in all as compensation, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of 6 per cent per annum as allowed by the Tribunal, from the date of the application till realisation.

As a result of the above discussion, both the appeals succeed and are allowed to the extent as indicated above, with costs Both the respondents will be liable for the payment of the above-said amounts jointly and severally.