Ravinder Singh vs Jarnail Singh and Jangir Singh

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This order of mine shall dispose of FAOs No. 408 and 773 of 1985 as the same have arisen out of common award and are directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatinda, who on a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the claimant on account of injuries suffered by him against the respondent i.e. owner of the truck.

Aggrieved against this order, Ravinder Singh claimant has filed FAO No. 408 of 1985 praying for enhancement of compensation amount whereas the respondent owner has preferred FAO No. 773 of 1985 for setting aside the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatinda (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal).

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the paper book.

Learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding that the accident in question, in which the claimant suffered injuries, was caused due to negligence of truck No. PNB 2540 driven by Jarnail Singh. A bare reading of the evidence brought on record shows that it has been proved that Ravinder Singh sustained injuries in an accident caused due to negligence of truck driver/respondent. Sadhu Singh supported the case of the claimant and there is no infirmity in their statements regarding the place and mode of occurrence.

The claimant was treated by Dr. N. D. Aggarwal Orthopaedic Surgeon Patiala. The claimant had suffered injuries on his right arm and right knee. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the front right side of the truck had dashed against the injured/minor. It also stands proved that the accident took place at right turning while coming from old bus stand. The mere omission to mention in the claim petition that the truck had come from the side of old bus stand or that front side of the truck had dashed against the injured minor, is of no consequence. The matter could not immediately be reported to the police as firstly the respondent compromised the matter with the claimant party and lateron backed out of it.

Dr. Kirpal Singh Sidhu, who is also Orthopaedic Surgeon, has stated that Ravinder Singh minor was brought to him on 2-2-1982, there was loss of skin of right arm from wrist to the whole length upto 1" above the elbow and ulna was stripped off under the muscles. His Radius was dislocated at the elbow joint while right knee had irregular lacerations over the patella with abrasions surrounding it. Dr. Harish Sood, Plastic Surgeon has stated that he had treated Rajinder Singh injured for the loss of skin over the right arm and had conducted three operations on him on 3-6-1982, 29-6 1982 and 22-7-1982. These witnesses have further stated that they had charged fees for the treatment of the injured.

Taking into consideration the gravity of injuries and tender age of the injured, Ravinder Singh who was a student of lower K. G Class and the fact that he has to go a long way in his life with his in-capacitated right am, I am of the considered view that a true compensation has not been paid to the claimant. The Tribunal should have taken into consideration the nature of injuries and expenses incurred by the claimant coupled with permanent disability. Thus, I find it a fit case where the compensation amount should be suitably enhanced. The claimant is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation. The claimant will also be entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of petition i.e. August, 1982 till its realization.

In view of the observations made above, the FAO No. 408 of 1985 is allowed and that of FAO No. 773 of 1985 is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.