Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs Ami Lal and Others

Rekha Mittal, J.

By way of this order, I shall dispose of FAO Nos. 5337 of 2013 and 5338 of 2013 filed by Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited (in short "the insurance company") as these have emerged out of common award dated 7.11.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (in short'' "the Tribunal"). Ami Lal, respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 5337 of 2013 filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") for award of compensation in regard to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of tractor Ford bearing No. HR-24K-7588 by Umed Singh, its driver. Another application was filed by Smt. Chandro Devi and others in regard to death of Suraj Bhan @ Raja in the same accident.

The learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,93,000/- on account of injuries sustained by Ami Lal and Rs. 5,90,000/- in regard to death of Suraj Bhan @ Raja.

Counsel for the appellants contends that in the first information report lodged regarding the accident, there is no reference to the registration particulars of the alleged offending vehicle and the applications for grant of compensation were filed in collusion with the owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle to grab compensation.

The insurance company has also challenged quantum of compensation in regard to injuries sustained by Ami Lal and death of Suraj Bhan @ Raja. It is argued that Ami Lal suffered disability to the extent of 21% but the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, 21% disablement and loss of future income. It is argued that as per medical evidence in view of testimony of Dr. T.R. Mittal, Senior Medical Officer, General Hospital, Fatehabad, disability suffered by Ami Lal is of temporary nature and could improve with surgery and bone grafting. It is argued that, at best, compensation can be allowed at Rs. 2000/- per 1% of disability in the light of Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Ram Kiran Goyal Vs. Sub Divisional Engineer, Mechanical and Others, .

To assail findings of the Tribunal in regard to assessment of income of deceased Suraj Bhan @ Raja, it is argued that learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed income at the rate of Rs. 4500/- per month, in excess of minimum wage for casual labour in the State of Haryana in December 2010.

There is no representation on behalf of injured Ami Lal and claimants namely Chandro Devi and others. Counsel representing the driver and owner of the offending vehicle has not made any submissions.

I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

To prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Umed Singh, driver, the injured-victim Ami Lal appeared in the witness box and reiterated his version set out in the application. Nothing tangible and material could be elicited during his cross examination to impeach his credibility and create doubt in his version. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal to the evidence of Ami Lal whose presence on the spot cannot be doubted as he is one of the victims having sustained injuries in the occurrence. This apart, After due investigation in the FIR, Ex. P63, charge sheet was submitted in the Court for commencement of trial for committing offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by Umed Singh. Keeping in view evidence on record, I do not find merit in the contention of counsel that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 are erroneous or result of misreading of evidence or non-application of mind.

The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,93,000/- to injured Ami Lal as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The insurance company has expressed its grievance only qua awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with regard to disability to the extent of 21%. Dr. T.R. Mittal examined in the case has deposed that Ami Lal was examined by a Board of Doctors to assess his disablement and on 28.3.2012, his disability was assessed as 21% which is of temporary nature on account of non-union of right leg with 50% loss of knee movement. He further deposed that said disability could improve with surgery and bone grafting. The disability certificate is marked as Ex. P62. Keeping in view the extent of disability and its nature coupled with medical opinion that the disability is amenable to improvement with surgical procedure and bone grafting, I find merit in the contention of counsel that compensation awarded by the Tribunal in regard to disability is excessive. Keeping in view the extent of disability, Ami Lal injured shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 42,000/- qua disability at Rs. 2000/- per 1%. However, as he remained admitted in the hospital for 21 days and suffered fracture of bone of leg, he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 8000/- towards expenses on transportation, services of an attendant, special diet etc. In this view of the matter, Ami Lal shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,43,000/- in respect of injuries sustained by him.

So far as challenge to compensation assessed by the Tribunal on account of death of Suraj Bhan, the mother of the deceased namely Chandro Devi appeared in the witness box and categorically stated that her son, aged 21 years was doing auto repair work, meaning thereby that the deceased was a skilled worker. In view of minimum wage fixed by the State of Haryana for a skilled worker prevalent in December 2010, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings of the Tribunal in assessing income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/- per month.

No other point has been raised. For the reasons aforesaid, FAO No. 5337 of 2013 is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, FAO No. 5338 of 2013 is dismissed with no order as to costs.