Surinder Singh vs Punjab State and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The challenge in appeal here is to the denial of compensation to the claimant Surinder Singh, who sustained serious injuries when the truck No. PUA 7337, he was traveling in, overturned on being involved in an accident with the Punjab Roadways bus No. PUO 2540. The truck that the claimant Surinder Singh was traveling in was loaded with bags of fertilizer and Surinder Singh was sitting on these bags. When the truck overturned these bags fell on him and resulted in the injuries being caused to him. This happened on July 28, 1980, at about 2 p.m. near the Gandasinghwala bypass, in the area of Police Station Sadar, Amritsar.

The Tribunal declined compensation to the claimant holding that he had suffered the injuries not on account of the accident between the truck and the bus but because he came under the bags of fertilizer that he was sitting on. A finding, which on the face of it is blatantly perverse, cannot, therefore, be sustained.

According to the claimant, the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus when it came on to the by-pass at a very fast speed and hit into the truck causing the truck thereby to overturn. In their written statement the Respondents denied any negligence on their part and took the plea that it was in fact the truck that came and hit into the bus and also that the truck was traveling on the wrong side of the road at that time.

The case of the claimant rests upon the testimony of PW 2 Tarlok Singh, the truck driver, who deposed as per version set out in the claim application, namely, that the bus came on to the by-pass at a very fast speed and without blowing any horn hit into the truck as a result of which the truck overturned and the claimant Surinder Singh came under the heap of bags of fertilizer. According to him, some passengers in the bus were also injured in this accident. A similar account of the incident was given by the claimant PW 1 Surinder Singh and the testimony of both these witnesses was corroborated by that of PW 3 Amir Singh, who is claimed to have witnessed this accident while working at workshop near the by-pass.

It has also come in evidence that a report of this accident was made to the police and the bus driver has been challenged in respect thereof. What is more the statement of PW 3 Amir Singh was also recorded by the police during the investigation of the case.

No evidence is forthcoming from the side of the Respondents. Even the bus driver was not examined which clearly warrants an adverse inference being recorded against them.

Taking an overall view of the evidence on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that it stands fully established here that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The fact that the injuries came to be suffered by the claimant by the bags of fertilizer falling over him cannot absolve the bus driver from the blame as it was on account of the bus striking against the truck that the truck overturned and it was then that these bags of fertilizer fell over the claimant. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence cannot therefore, be sustained.

As regards the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant, it was his testimony that as a result of this accident he suffered multiple injuries and included amongst them the amputation of his right arm, fracture of the right thigh. Further, it was said that he was a mason by profession and now on account of the injuries suffered, he could no longer work as such and was thus denied his source of income which, according to him, was to the tune of Rs. 900/- per month. No medical evidence was, however, produced by the claimant with regard to the nature and extent of his injuries. This being so on the prayer of the counsel for the claimant, Surinder Singh was ordered to be examined by Dr. I.C. Pathak, former Director of the P.G.I., Chandigarh.

According to the report of Dr. I.C. Pathak, there is an amputation of the right arm of the claimant from the elbow which has resulted in permanent physical impairment and loss of function of the right upper limb to the extent of 75 per cent. The loss of this right upper limb clearly renders him incapable of working as a mason or even to look after himself, though the doctor opined that an artificial limb can be fitted which would be of some help. Further, it was found that on account of the fracture in his right thigh bone, there was shortening of the right lower extremity to the extent of 3 cm. which causes the claimant to limp while walking and this, in turn, results in 5-20 per cent impairment in function of the whole person.

There can be no manner of doubt that the injuries suffered by the claimant were indeed of a serious nature and constitute a severe handicap, both in his daily living as also in carrying out his profession, namely, that of a mason. The claimant cannot in fact work any longer as mason with his right arm having been amputated. This obviously means that he has suffered a significant loss in his earning capacity.

It is also obvious that the claimant must have undergone considerable pain and suffering as the result of the injuries suffered by him and he must also have spent some amount on his treatment.

Keeping in view the overall situation and condition of the claimant in the context of the injuries suffered by him and the disabilities that he is now left with, he must indeed be held entitled to the amount claimed, i.e., rupees one lakh. This amount would be inclusive of compensation for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of the amenities of life and also loss of earning.

The claimant is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh), along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. The Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded. This appeal is accordingly hereby accepted with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/- . The Appellant shall, in addition, also be entitled to the costs of his medical examination by Dr. I.C. Pathak, as also the amount spent by him on his X-rays, total being Rs. 1,650/- Appeal allowed.