Sulinder Singh vs Didar Singh and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, (hereinafter called the Tribunal), dated March 21, 1983, whereby a sum of Rs. 48,000/- has been awarded as compensation on account of the injuries caused to Didar Singh, claimant.

On November 23, 1779, Ambassador car No. DHB-660, driven by Salinder Singh alias Satinderjit Singh (the owner and the driver of the car), hit Didar Singh on the kutcha berm of the road at bus adda village Singh-pura as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his legs (which were crushed) and head. The car was being driven at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. Didar Singh was admitted to the P G.I. immediately and discharged on December 18, 1979. He was again admitted there on January 9, 1980 and was discharged on February 1, 1980. According to the claimant, he spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on his treatment and that it was still continuing. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he had become permanently disabled and could not do his day to day work. He was about 47 years of age at the time of the accident. Because of the injuries sustained, he claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,00)/- by way of compensation on account of loss of income, for pain and suffering and permanent disability etc. In the written statement, the driver and the owner of the car, Salinder Singh pleaded that the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence of Didar Singh, claimant, himself. Didar Singh, claimant, with Bant Singh and Rajinder Singh, was travelling in a truck proceeding from Dera Bassi side to Zirakpur Chandigarh side. When the said truck stopped at the bus adda of village Singhpura, the said Bant Singh and Rajinder Singh left and Didar Singh too got down from the truck and materialising suddenly from behind the said truck, tried to cross the road to reach his tea stall and thus struck against car No. DHB-660 driven by him, i.e., Salinder Singh, appellant, coming from Chandigarh side, though he tried his utmost to avoid the accident. It was further pleaded that there was no fault on his part and that Didar Singh, claimant, was himself responsible for the said accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the petitioner was injured on account of rash and negligent driving of car No. DHB-660 by the respondent ?

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what compensation is the petitioner entitled ?

(3) Relief.

Under issue No. 1, it was concluded that from the evidence adduced, it was apparent that Salinder Singh, drove his car rashly and negligently and rammed it against Didar Singh, claimant, then standing on the road resulting into injuries to him. Under issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 700/- per month. Ultimately, it was found that the claimant was entitled to a sura of Rs. 48,000/- So far as the interest thereon was concerned, the Tribunal held that in case the said amount was not paid within two months by Salinder Singh, appellant, he will also be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum. Dissatisfied with the same, Salinder Singh, the owner of the car, has filed this first appeal whereas cross-objections have been filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it has been wrongly held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. Ha further submitted that there was no basis for holding that the income of the injured was Rs. 700/- par month. The said finding is based on surmises and conjectures. That being so, the amount of Rs. 48,000/-determined as compensation was excessive On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the injured claimant submitted that the Tribunal failed to determine the amount of compensation itemwise. The income of the claimant was Rs. 1,000/- p:r month, as stated by him, while appearing in the witness-box as A.W. 2. There was no rebuttal thereto. Therefore, his income should have been held at Rs. 1,000/- instead of Rs. 700/- per month. According to the learned Counsel, the disability suffered by the patient being 50 per cent, the amount of compensation determined was too meagre. It was further argued, that in somewhat similar circumstances, this Court awarded much higher amount than Rs. 48,000/-. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Brij Lal v. Mangal Chand Maheshwari, (1985 2) Punjab Law Reporter 558 and Hardev Singh v. The Sharnarthi Co-operative Transpot Society Ltd., Abohar 1986 2 PLR 245. An argument was also raised that the claimant was entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent, from the date of application, which the learned Tribunal failed to award. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on Jagbir Singh and Others Vs. General Manager Punjab Roadways and Others, .

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

As regards the finding of the Tribunal that the offending car was being driven by the appellant rashly and negligently, no meaningful arguments could be raised on behalf of the appellant to challenge the same. Besides, the learned Tribunal discussed the entire evidence in detail and has given a firm finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the Tribunal under issue No. 1 is affirmed.

So far as the findings of the Tribunal under issue No. 2 are concerned, it did not determine the amount under individual heads. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it found that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Didar Singh, in his statement, while appearing as A.W. 2, stated that his income was about Rs. 1,000/- per month, but the Tribunal, giving due allowance for the exaggeration, found that his income could safely be taken to be not less than Rs. 700/- per month. According to the statements of two doctors, the permanent disability of the claimant was to the extent of 45 per cent to 55 per cent. Under the circumstances, the permanent disability could be held to be 50 per cent. The claimant is an agriculturist. According to him, he owns agricultural land and also takes land on batai. It would have been better if the Tribunal had determined the amount of compensation payable to the claimant, itemwise, as observed by this Court in Brij Lal''s case (supra). However, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that the sum of Rs. 48,000/- determined as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, does not require any interference in appeal So far as the interest thereon is concerned, the claimant is entitled to the same at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of 6 per cent per annum as allowed by the Tribunal, till realisation and that too from the date of application.

Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed whereas the cross-objections are accepted to the extent indicated above.

Out of the sum of Rs. 48,000/-, as determined by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been paid to the claimant as is clear from this Court order dated May 31, 1985 so far as the balance amount of Rs. 18,000/-is concerned, this Court vide order dated October 30, 1985, directed that it shall be payable with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from that date till realisation. However, the said amount was not paid, and, therefore, vide order dated 18-12-1985, the rate of interest was raised to 18 per cent. Still the amount was not paid and, therefore, vide this Court order dated May 2, 1986, it was directed that the appellant will pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent instead of 18 per cent thereon. In view of the said orders, it is made clear that so far as the amount of Rs. 18000/- out of Rs. 48,030/-is concerned, the injured will be entitled to interest thereon at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from October 30, 1985, till realisation. On the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- which has already been paid to the claimant, he will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application, till May 31, 1985, when the said amount was paid.