Jaswant Singh vs Gul Mohd. alias Mool Mohd. and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—Claimant still not dis-satisfied with the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge has filed this appeal.

As per facts on record claimant while coming to join his duties in the Central Post Office Ludhiana met with an accident and suffered injuries on his person-on his chest and on his left arm. Report was lodged with the police and thereafter was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana where he remained confined from 17.11.1982 to 21.11.1982 and again from 7.12.1982 to 20.12.1982. A claim petition was filed claiming compensation on account of injuries/permanent disabilities, loss of income, special diet, medical expenses and other amount spent as rickshaw charges. Claim Tribunal framed the issues as arose on the pleadings of the parties and permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Tribunal on considering the matter in the light of evidence on record finally determined the compensation to be paid to the claimant at Rs. 8,162.75 i.e. Rs. 5,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs. 1600/- for loss of salary, Rs. 1,000/- on account of special diet and other expenses which the claimant incurred on medical and rickshaw charges. A direction was given by the Tribunal that the amount be paid within a period of two months else the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the (late of order till the realisation of the amount. The learned Single Judge on considering the matter from all conceivable angles i.e. taking into consideration the nature of injuries, pain and sufferings of the claimant, pecuniary loss, conveyance charges and medical expenses, enhanced the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant at Rs. 20,000/-, with 12% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation of the entire amount.

The learned Single Judge on considering the matter from all conceivable angles i.e. taking into consideration the nature of injuries, pain and sufferings of the claimant, pecuniary loss, conveyance charges and medical expenses, enhanced the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant at Rs. 20,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization of the entire amount.

Counsel with a view to seek modification of the judgment of the learned Single Judge has once again made reference to the claim petition, evidence of the appellant the claimant and statement of doctor who attended the claimant. Counsel, thus, argued that the learned Single Judge has not kept in view the nature of injuries which the appellant suffered on account of this accident. According to the counsel, the appellant has become totally incapacitated and has invariably to travel in a rickshaw or such like other conveyance. Otherwise too, the disability suffered, is of a permanent nature and so the amount awarded by the learned Single Judge is rather too meager. Reliance has been placed upon the following decision :-

1) Anup Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others, ;

2) R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, ; and

3) Devki Nandan Bangur v. State of Haryana 1995 RCJ 1288.

According to the counsel, claimant could atleast ought to have been awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, we are of the view that the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed. Tribunal in the first instance on evaluating the evidence determined the amount of compensation to be paid on account of pain and suffering to be Rs. 5,000/-. Besides it, the Tribunal compensated the claimant on account of loss of pay, medical expenses, rickshaw charges and expenses on special diet, in all a sum of Rs.8,162.75. The learned Single Judge while examining the matter afresh enhanced the amount of compensation under various heads and so awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- almost 2-1/2 times the compensation which was awarded by the Tribunal, no doubt, the appellant suffered fracture of left humerous and fracture of his left side ribs of the chest but the patient remained in hospital firstly for four days and thereafter for another fortnight. For the latter period as he developed some infection and so was advised rest. As per deposition of Shri Y.C. Markan, Orthopaedics Surgeon, patient has only slight weakness of arm and limitation of shoulder movement. Doctor''s statement is dated 21.5.1984. No other evidence has been adduced by the appellant to substantiate his contention that disability is of a permanent nature or of what percentage. In the absence of any such proof no reliance can be placed upon the mere oral assertion of the appellant. Even with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge, we find the same to be just and proper. Appellant was a probationer drawing a salary of Rs. 627/- per month only. There is no proof on record that on account of this injury he has been debarred from any further promotion or feels otherwise incapacitated to perform normal duties.

Judgments relied by the appellant infact are not applicable and otherwise distinguishable as per facts of the present case. In Anup Kumar''s case (supra) the claimant suffered a fracture of mandible and fracture of pelvis and so inter-maxillary wiring was done for his fractured mandible. The claimant was advised complete rest for few weeks and thereafter to undergo physiotherapy exercises. Not only this, he was advised crutches to be used. Keeping these salient facts in view the Court awarded a sum of sum of Rs. 30,000/- for pain and suffering.

Similarly, in R.D. Hattangadi''s case (supra) a practicing advocate suffered total permanent disability on account of paraplegia below the waist and so the Court awarded compensation keeping in view the total disability and the expenses which the claimant was to incur for home attendants, allopathic medicines, Fowler''s bed and electric wheelchair etc. This judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case as in the instant case the appellant suffered injuries on his chest and on left arm and there is no proof that he has become incapacitated on account these injuries.

Similarly, in Devki Nandan Bangur''s case (supra) claimant suffered injuries upon his right tibia and his right patelia, which injuries were of permanent nature. Claimant had to undergo an operation of his leg and subsequently too for another operation for removal of wires and so on the facts of the case the Court awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as general damages and Rs. 15,000/- for expenses on his treatment. This judgment too is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Thus, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed.