Balbir Singh vs Gurtej Singh and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This judgment will dispose of FAO No. 1015 of 1984, Cross objection No. 54-C-II of 1985 filed by Gurtej Singh, Respondent No. 1, driver of offending Bus No. PUF-5209 and Cross Objection No. 88-C-II of 1989 file by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Respondent No. 3 which have arisen out of the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Faridkot, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) vide its award dated 10-9-1984, had awarded a sum of Rs. 59,000/- as compensation to the claimant Balbir Singh on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

In the appeal, the prayer of the claimant is for enhancement of the compensation. In Cross Objection No. 54 of 1985, the plea of Respondent No. 1 is that he was wrongly held liable to pay Rs. 9000/- out of the compensation awarded and according to him the entire liability to pay compensation should have been fastened on the Insurance Company. In Cross Objection No. 88 of 1989, the grouse of the Insurance Company is that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- only and the Tribunal had wrongly held that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. As such, Respondent No. 3 has prayed for modification of the award.

I have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

In the instant case, the involvement of offending vehicle and sustaining of injuries by the claimant in the alleged accident are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

Dr. Mankesh Gambhir (PW-1) who had examined the claimant on 17-7-1982, found a crushed injury on the left thigh 9 cms. below the anterior superior iliac spine. The bone was cut. The muscles and blood vessels were cut. Dr. Pritam Singh Dhaliwal while appearing as PW-6 before the Tribunal stated that he had examined Balbir Singh, Claimant for his left lower limb and found that femular artery was cut and had been ligated. This witness further stated that the injury had caused permanent disability and its percentage was adjudged 80%.

Taking into consideration the nature of injury and permanent disability suffered by the claimant. I am of the view that compensation awarded to him is not sufficient. The claimant is unmarried youngman and he was 23 years old at the time of the accident. After this unfortunate accident, he became crippled. He will have to lead a handicapped life depending upon others throughout his life has become uncomfortable and his future prospects of marriage have diminished.

For the foregoing reasons, the claimant Appellants is awarded lumpsum Rs. 80,000/- as compensation on account of pain and suffering, permanent disability, loss of enjoyment of amenities of life, loss of Income, and medical expenses etc. He shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of the claim petition till realisation. Out of the compensation awarded, a sum of Rs. 59,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal is to be adjusted.

The appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.

The award of the Tribunal does not call for any interference as regards the liability to pay the compensation amount. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by Respondents No. 1 and 3 are dismissed.