Subhash Kumar vs The State of Punjab and Others

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—On 18th November, 1981, Subhash Kumar, a youngman of 20 years was standing on the road-side near the Canal bridge of village Ansron, with his Rehri for selling fruits and vegetables. Nearby he was also having this Khokha (wooden stall) for carrying the same business. At about 10 AM on that day, Punjab Roadways Bus No. PBQ 3578, driven by Rattan Singh driver hit him causing several injuries. The Rehri and Khokha were also smashed by the impact of the bus and the fruits and vegetables were destroyed. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short'' the Tribunal''), accusing driver of the bus for negligent driving, and claimed Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1000/- the amount spent in medical treatment, Rs. 2000/- for loss of business and Rs. 3000/- for the loss of Khokha and Rehri.

The State of Punjab and the driver denied the accident and contested the petition.

On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1). Whether the claimant suffered injuries due to the rash or negligent driving of Bus No. PBQ 3578 driven by Rattan Singh respondent No. 3? OPA.

(2). If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation and if so, to what extent and from which of the respondent?

(3). Relief.

On amendment of the claim petition, the following additional issue was framed:

2-A Whether the application is within time against Rattan Singh respondent No. 3, and if not, what is its effect?

The Tribunal by award dated 2nd May, 1983 has allowed only Rs. 1000/-to the claimant, in spite of recording a finding that the claimant suffered minor injuries due to accident and his Rehri and Khokna were damaged, as the Tribunal was not able to ascertain the extent of damage. This is claimant''s appeal.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I am of the view that the Tribunal was rather miser in awarding the meagre compensation. The claimant received the following injuries, according to the statement of Dr. R.K. Sharma, who appeared as PW 6:

(1) Incised wound 4 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm vertically placed over the left cheek with upper and tapering and subcutaneous fat and muscle exposed. Fresh blood was present. Advised Xray.

(2) Incised wound 2 cm linear over the centre of forehead obliquely placed about 1 inch above the root of nose. Fresh blood was oozing out.

(3) Linear abrasion 2-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over the lateral aspect of fore arm on left side lower end of abrasion was about 1 cm above the eye brow.

(4) 1 cm x 1/2 cm abrasion over the root of nose. It was covered with fresh blood.

(5) 1 cm x 1 cm abrasion over the dorsum of hand in between left little and ring finger at the base.

(6) 1 cm x 1/2 cm abrasion over the base of left and index finger.

A reading of the injuries shows that there was a 4 cm long incised wound over the left cheek and 2 cm long incised wound over the centre of the forehead besides abrasions on the left fore-arm, root of the nose and on the fingers of the left hand. The claimant had to remain an indoor patient in the hospital from 18th November, 1981 till 26th November, 1981.

Rehri and Khokha were newly set up in 1980, say sometime a year before the accident and the entire fruits and vegetables were spoiled in the accident. If Rs. 5000/- are allowed to the claimant on all the counts permissible in law, with effect from the date of accident, with 12 per cent per annum compound interest, the amount today would be near about Rs. 10,000/-. Accordingly, I consider it proper to award Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant with a direction to the State of Punjab to pay the same to the claimant within two months'' from today so that he is able to rehabilitate himself with a further direction that in case the payment is not made within two months, the claimant would be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, from the date of filing of the claim application till realization, I am passing this conditional order so that there is an incentive to the State to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant within a period of two months and I do hope that the order would be complied with. Otherwise, of course the claimant would be entitled to seek execution and to get interest as indicated above.

With the aforesaid order, the appeal stands all owed to the extent with costs.