State of Punjab and Another vs Manorma Aggarwal

J.V. Gupta, J.—This judgment will also dispose of the cross-appeal F.A.O. No. 925 of 1983 as both arise out of the same award of the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, dated 27th May, 1983.

The claimant Manorma Aggarwal, aged 35 years, was employed as a teacher with the Punjab Education Department, and she was posted at Ludhiana. She was coming to Chandigarh on 11th April, 1981, by bus No. PUG 3759 belonging to the Punjab Roadways, Batala Depot. When it reached near Attawa, a plank of the roof of the bus fell on her, causing a fracture of her right leg which hung into two parts. She was taken to the P.G.I., Chandigarh where she remained as an indoor patient from 27th April, 1981 to 10th June, 1981. On these allegations, she filed the claim petition.

In the written statement, the Punjab Roadways pleaded that no accident had taken place with Punjab Roadways bus and, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether Manorma Aggarwal sustained injuries on 11.4.1981 in a motor vehicle accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of bus No. PUG 3759 belonging to the Punjab Roadways, Batala Depot? OPP

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and if so, against whom? OPP

(3) Whether the driver of the bus is necessary party? OPR

(4) Relief.

Under issue Nos. 1 and 3, discussed together, it was found that it was much more the fault of the Roadways as it allowed the bus having loose planks of the roof to ply, rather than the blame of the driver. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the compensation on the following heads:

Rs.

(i) Leave without pay 6,000/ -

(ii) Transportation charges 5,000/ -

(iii) Special diet 3,000/ -

(iv) Treatment 7,000/ -

Total: 21,000/ -

However, while allowing the compensation, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs; 16,000/ - only along with 10 per cent interest per annum. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has filed F.A.O. No. 925 of 1983 for enhancement whereas the Punjab Roadways has preferred F.AO. No. 908 of 1983.

The learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that after awarding the compensation under various heads, the total comes to Rs. 21,000/ - but the award was given only for Rs. 16,000/ -. He also submitted that no compensation was allowed under the head of pain and suffering, as the claimant remained in the hospital for about two months, i.e., from 27th April to 10th June, 1981. According to the counsel, a minimum of Rs. 10,000/ -should be allowed under this head. In support of this contention, he referred to Baldev Krishan v. Chander Deep Jain 1984 ACJ 163 (P and H). It was also contended that no compensation was awarded on account of the diminution of the marriage prospects of the claimant.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State of Punjab submitted that the claimant was not entitled to any amount on account of diminution of the prospects of marriage of the claimant, as there was no evidence in that respect. However, he did not dispute that the claimant was entitled to compensation on account of pain and suffering. He also did not dispute that the total amount awarded by the Tribunal should have been Rs. 21,000/ - and not Rs. 16,000/ -.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the claimant was entitled to compensation under the head of pain and suffering as well. On the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - on this account will meet the ends of justice. Since there is no cogent evidence on record for diminution of the marriage prospects of the claimant, no compensation can be allowed on this score. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 26,000/ -, including Rs. 5,000/ - on account of less awarded. The claimant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, F.A.O. No. 925 of 1983 is allowed as indicated above whereas F.A.O. No. 908 of 1983 fails and is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.