Naresh Kumar vs D.G.P. (Director General of Police)

K. Kannan, J.—All the appeals are connected and they arise out of the same accident. The appeals in FAO Nos. 3084 and 3086 of 1996 are for enhancement of compensation for personal injuries, while the appeal in FAO No. 3085 of 1996 is for compensation for damage to the vehicle. The accident took place on 16.07.1993. Shingara Singh and Naresh Kumar took scooter from Kanwar Pal. Shingara Singh was driving the scooter and Naresh Kumar was the pillion rider. In the meanwhile, a gypsy Maruti came from the opposite side and hit the scooter. The Tribunal found both the drivers of the vehicles negligent and apportioned the liability as 50:50.

The appeal in FAO Nos. 3084 to 3086 of 1996 are at the instance of claimants-Naresh Kumar, Kanwar Pal and Shingara Singh respectively that the Tribunal was in error in holding them responsible for the said accident.

It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the Scooterist and the apportionment of liability between the driver of the scooter and the driver of the Maruti gypsy in the ratio of 50:50 was erroneous. As per the version of PW2, the Scooterist was coming from Uchana side towards Karnal. A gypsy was coming from Karnal side and a Maruti gypsy had suddenly applied brakes while it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner that caused the Scooterist to dash against the Maruti gypsy. The claimants Shingara and Naresh Kumar have also a similar version. It is not as if the Maruti gypsy was going ahead of scooter and the driver of the gypsy applied the brakes suddenly without signalling that resulted in the Scooterist to dash against the vehicle. There were two vehicles coming on the opposite direction and it was no virtue of the driver of Maruti car to suddenly apply the brake to make for an inference that he had applied caution. In a typical road accident scene involving two vehicles coming from opposite directions, I will look for a greater degree of circumspection from a heavier vehicle in a collision between a four wheeler and a scooter. I will, therefore, place a greater responsibility for the driver of the four-wheeler to prevent an accident. Under the circumstances, I will modify the case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% and apportion the liability between the driver of the scooter and the driver of the Maruti gypsy in the ratio of 25:75.

As regards the claim of Naresh Kumar who was a pillion rider, no part of negligence could be attributed to him and there is no scope for making any abatement of the claim. He has a right of enforcement of the award against anyone of the claimants since, qua him, the accident was result of composite negligence and he has a right of enforcement of the whole amount against anyone of the tort feasors. The Tribunal had assessed Naresh Kumar who is the appellant in FAO No. 3084 of 1996, had stated that he had originally taking treatment at the Civil Hospital at Karnal where he was treated for a fracture of the leg. The fracture was reduced by the surgical operation and by implant of a plate. There were no medical bills brought on record, but against the claim of Rs. 35,000/-, the Tribunal took at least Rs. 25,000/- as possible of having been incurred towards medicine, hospital charges, special diet and transportation. I find no reason to modify the same. The Tribunal also awarded another Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income and disability. I have no material before me about the nature of disability suffered by the appellant. I will make an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The amount in excess over what has been awarded already by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The claimant shall be at liberty to enforce the award against the respondents in full and the respondents shall also be at liberty to apply for a contribution to the extent of 25% of the same against Shingara Singh in the same proceedings. The claimant shall also be at liberty to make a full satisfaction of the award for 75% and at his option proceed against Shingara Singh for the rest of 25%. The appeal in FAO No. 3084 of 1996 is allowed to the above extent.

In the appeal in FAO No. 3086 of 1996, Shingara Singh is the claimant. The Tribunal had assessed of Rs. 1,60,000/- under two heads, namely, Rs. 1 lakh towards medicines, hospital charges, special diet and transportation and Rs. 60,000/- for loss of amenities due to the disability suffered. Out of Rs. 1,60,000/-, as determined, it applied an abatement of 50% for the negligence attributed to him and awarded a compensation of only Rs. 80,000/-. The evidence brought on record showed that he had been originally admitted in Civil Hospital, Karnal and later shifted to PGI, Chandigarh where he remained admitted for 28 days. Later he had taken treatment from Dr. Anil Bhati''s Nursing Home at Ferozepur and still later, he had himself admitted in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar for about one month. PW3 was Dr. S.K. Gupta, a SMO, Ferozepur, who gave evidence to the effect that he had examined him and assessed him to be handicapped to the extent of 60%. Although the claimant had contended that he had spent about Rs. 1,25,000/- for medical expenses, he had produced no bills. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1 lakh under all the relevant heads including medicines, medical treatment, special diet and transportation. For the disability which was assessed at 60%, the Tribunal had granted Rs. 60,000/-. I will provide for an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the fact that I have found the claimant to be responsible to the extent of 25% for contributory negligence, the claimant shall be entitled to 75% of the same, namely, Rs. 1,38,750/-. The amount in excess over what has been assessed already by the Tribunal will attract interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the respondents.

The appeal in FAO No. 3085 of 1996 is by the owner of the vehicle for damage to the scooter. The Tribunal had assessed the damage as Rs. 6,000/- but awarded only Rs. 4,000/-. I retain the damages assessed at Rs. 6,000/- and consistent with my finding regarding the apportionment of liability allow for 75% of the same against the respondent and award Rs. 4,500/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the respondent. All the appeals are allowed to the above extent.