Gurnam Singh vs Joginder Singh and Others

M.L. Singhal, J.—This is a letters Patent appeal against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A.O. No. 505 of 1983 and cross objections No.77-C-II of 1983.

In a motor vehicle accident that took place on 1.10.1980 at 10.00 P.M. authored by Joginder Singh by rash and negligent driving of truck No. AMA 494 at Ropar-Chandigarh road, Gurmit Singh a minor child lost his life, Gurnam Singh received injuries which crippled him and Gurdev Singh received serious injuries. The offending truck was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited. This motor vehicle accident gave rise to three claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (Punjab).

Gurnam Singh-present appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum payable from the date of the petition i.e. 18.3.1981 till realisation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Out of this amount of Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid by the insurer with interest while the remaining amount was to be paid to him by Narinder Singh owner of the offending truck, in view of his finding, that Joginder Singh was responsible for this accident because of rash and negligent driving of the truck by him.

Aggrieved from this award, Joginder Singh-driver and Narinder Singh owner of the offending truck came to this Court in F.A.O. No. 505 of 1983. Not satisfied with the amount awarded, Gurnam Singh came up in cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC Code and claimed that the amount of compensation be enhanced to Rs. 2-1/2 lacs.

Learned Single Judge accepted the appeal and reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. It was ordered that the liability of the owner and insurer will be joint and several. Cross-objections filed by Gurnam Singh were dismissed.

Not satisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.8.1987, Gurnam Singh has knocked the door of this Court through this letters patent appeal and has prayed that the amount of compensation awarded to him be enhanced to Rs. 2-1/2 lacs.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and have gone through the record.

In our opinion, there was absolutely no reason to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant-Gurnam Singh by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar. Gurnam Singh appeared before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as PW.3 and stated that the injuries sustained by him in this accident have disabled him. Dr. Vinod Singhal, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, PGI Chandigarh PW.6 stated that Gurnam Singh was admitted to PGI Chandigarh on 2.10.1980. There was an abrasion 6cm x 5 cm over the left elbow. There was another abrasion on the lateral aspect of right knee. There was also a punctured wound on the anterior aspect of right knee. Besides these injuries, there was an un-displaced fracture of inferior pubic ramus of the right side with subluxation of left sacroiliac joint. There fracture crippled Gurnam Singh-claimant. According to the doctor, there was no treatment of this fracture. He applied no plaster for this fracture. He advised rest to Gurnam Singh. Gurnam Singh was discharged from the PGI on 4.10.1980. The doctor stated that this type of dislocation and fracture was sure to leave permanent disability and would make the patient unfit for heavy work of physical nature.

Gurnam Singh-PW.3 stated that he was admitted as an indoor patient in PGI, Chandigarh and remained admitted there for 4/5 days. He received several injuries including fracture of hip bone and fracture of ribs. He was unable to stand erect because of injuries which disabled him. He was unable to pursue the ordinary avocation of life. He was engaged in agriculture prior to this accident and growing vegetables. He had also been selling milk after purchasing it from other people. He had his own buffaloes. He was engaged in farming and dairy business. He was helping his family in agriculture and in diary farming, by driving tractor and doing other odd jobs of physical nature. He was unable to perform these jobs due to the injuries sustained by him in this accident. In cross-examination doctor Vinod Singhal PW.6 stated that the injury under the fracture would have healed in the normal course with rest to the patient but the deformity was sure to remain there. In a period of the three months wound have been cured as also the fracture. He could not depose about the percentage of the disability because he did not examine him from that point of view. Gurnam Singh was 26/27 years old at the time when he suffered this accident. He has wife and four children. He stated that he was earning Rs. 2000/-per mensem. There is, however, no cogent evidence to suggest that he was really earning Rs. 2000/- per mensem. The fact, however, remains that earlier he was a driver. He gave up the job of a driver after his father had purchased tractor. Assuming that he was only driving tractor and did not have any share in the profits earned from agriculture and was not being paid on any other score, he must not have been contributing to the family less than Rs. 6000/- 7000/- per annum. Gurdev Singh-PW.4 stated that his father was paying salary to Gurnam Singh for driving tractor. Gurnam Singh''s earning capacity must have suffered to the tune of Rs. 300/- per month because of this accident. 16 should be the multiplier applied in this case. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal applied 16 as multiplier, keeping in view that Gurnam Singh was only 26/27 years old.

Gurnam Singh was deprived of enjoyment of life because of the injuries sustained by him in this accident. These injuries would lead him in trauma for the rest of his life. Further, he will be viewed as limp in society. He would, thus, suffer a lot so far as his physical looks are concerned. In our opinion, the award of Rs. 20,000/-by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to Gurnam Singh under the head ''general damages'' for pain and sufferings cannot be said to be excessive.

The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2400/- as special damages under the head ''treatment'' etc.

We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant-Gurnam Singh that Gurnam Singh was earning more or that his contribution to the family was more.

In our opinion, learned Single Judge did not take into account that for carrying out agricultural operations, diary farming and growing vegetables, one has to be in perfect health. A limp cannot possibly carry out these operations efficiently and with agility. A limp cannot possibly and effectively drive tractor. There was no justification for the learned Single Judge to have assessed the loss of earning capacity of Gurnam Singh at Rs. 27600/- per annum only.

In view of the above discussion, we allow this appeal and restore the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar in favour of Gurnam Singh awarding him Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. We award him (Gurnam Singh) Rs. 2000/- as costs.

Since the liability of the New India Assurance Company Limited, was limited, we direct that out of Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid by the New India Assurance Company Limited while the remaining amount shall be paid by the owner and the driver whose liability shall be joint and several. Costs shall be paid by the New India Assurance Company Limited to the appellant-Gurnam Singh.