Harbans Lal vs Surjit Singh

Navita Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

This appeal is filed against the award dated 25.01.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, whereby the appellant was awarded compensation of Rs. 82,000/- for the injuries received by him in a road accident.

The brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.2003 at about 4.00 p.m., the appellant was going to drop his sister Sadho Devi to her house at village Bal Chhappar on his scooter bearing No. HR-02H-7743 which was being driven by him at normal speed. At about 4.30 p.m., when he reached near village Langar Chhanni near Petrol Pump on Jagadhri Pabni road, a motor-cycle bearing No. HR-02F-2989 which was being driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against the scooter of the appellant. Due to the impact, the appellant and his sister both fell down and suffered injuries. They were taken to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri by Kashmir Singh and Ravinder Kumar. From there, the injured were referred to PGI Chandigarh. However, the appellant went to the hospital of Dr. S.C. Jindal, Yamunanagar for treatment and remained admitted from 15.10.2003 to 10.11.2003. A criminal case regarding the accident was registered by way of FIR No. 246 dated 16.10.2003 in Police Station Chhappar.

The respondent filed reply denying all the allegations in the petition. He totally denied that accident had taken place with his motor-cycle and pleaded that the petition had been filed on false and frivolous grounds. He further pleaded that the accident if any, might have taken place with some other vehicle and he was involved falsely. Another petition had been filed by the sister of the claimant who, however, died during the pendency of the petition and her legal representatives were brought on record.

Consolidated issues in both petitions were framed by the Tribunal, which are reproduced below:-

Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of motor-cycle No. HR-02F-2989 by Surjit Singh-respondent No. 1 ? OPP

Whether the claimant-Harbans Lal is entitled to recover any amount of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident, if so to what amount and from whom ? OPP

Whether the claimant-Sadho Devi is entitled to recover any amount of compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident, if so to what amount and from whom ? OPP

Whether the claim-petitions are false and frivolous ? OPR

Relief.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the amount of Rs. 62,100/- awarded to the appellant, which he had spent on his treatment. He has contended that the main grievance of the appellant is that nothing was granted as compensation towards loss of income, transportation and expenses for the attendant.

So far as the compensation for expenses of the attendant and the transportation charges are concerned, the award is silent. It has come in evidence that the appellant remained hospitalized from 15.10.2003 to 10.11.2003 and his bed head ticket and other bills etc. were proved by Dr. Yogesh Jindal, PW3. The contention on behalf of the appellant is proved that he was hospitalized and so it is presumed that there was attendant with him and some compensation on that count should have been awarded by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the respondent could not give any convincing argument to the contrary. However, she submitted that nothing was required to be awarded towards loss of income because the injured was an ex-serviceman and was getting pension. He was not earning anything besides that, so as to show that there was any loss of income.

The appellant in his appeal has alleged that he was an agriculturist and was also an agent of Life Insurance Company. However, he could not lead any evidence on that count. It is not proved on record that he even owned any agricultural land what to show that it was under his own cultivation and that his physical absence had resulted in loss of income. He brought on record, copy of his identity card Ex. P77, to show that he was an insurance agent. However, the date of issue is of 2005 whereas accident occurred in 2003. The appellant did not come with clean hands on this point.

However, since no amount was awarded as compensation towards transportation, some amount the appellant is entitled to for that, besides expenses of attendant. On both counts i.e. for attendant and transportation, a consolidated sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded and the compensation of Rs. 82,000/- already awarded is enhanced to Rs. 1,02,000/-.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.