Phool Singh vs Sri Niwas Alias Leelu and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

CM No. 25233 & 25234-CII of 2011

For the reasons mentioned in both the applications, delay in filing as well as re-filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO No. 6349 of 2011

This is an appeal brought by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. Phool Singh, the claimant had brought a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the loss suffered by the building of his shop as well as the goods stored therein for sale as also the allied damages. Vide award dated 03.02.2011 learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short ''the Tribunal'') allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- to the claimant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

The claimant was running a shop of the size 14 feet x 12 feet on one side of the road. During the night intervening 25th and 26th November 2008 at about 2.00 AM a truck bearing registration No. HR-46-B-4210 came in a rash and negligent manner from the side of Dadri and straightway hit the shop of the claimant damaging the same completely. The truck was being driven by respondent No. 1, Sri Niwas alias Leelu. As a result of the accident, the claimant also suffered damage of the goods lying therein, which he valued at Rs. 1,00,000/-. He has claimed that he reconstructed the shop after spending a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He has claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

The respondents have denied the aforesaid averments. The accident is denied to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question. It is claimed that the accident occurred with some unknown vehicle.

Framing issues and taking evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-. According to him, Rs. 1,25,000/- had been the compensation for damage suffered by the shop and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is the amount lost by the claimant in the damage of the goods stored in the shop in question.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that learned Tribunal has not assessed even a single penny in the name of the loss the appellant suffered as he remained without work for one year on account of damage of his shop and the goods lying therein. According to him, he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and so calculated, he is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation. According to him, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant remained without work for a year or that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.

In the accident, the appellant lost his shop as well as the articles stored therein for sale. For him, the Tribunal has adequately compensated him by assessing a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation. However, learned Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the appellant remained without work for sometime. He would not have been able to raise the construction of his shop immediately. There could be constraint of money and even if there was no such constraint then even construction of shop would require a number of months to complete. In these circumstances the appellant deserves a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for remaining idle for six months. Consequently, I accept the appeal and enhance the compensation from Rs. 1,75,000/- to Rs. 2,25,000/- which shall be payable to the claimant with interest as allowed by the Tribunal.