Sukhwinder Singh vs Shera Singh

K. Kannan, J.—Both the cases are connected and they arise out of the same accident that occurred on 20.08.1997.

FAO No. 1936 of 2000 is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation. The Tribunal had reasoned that the petitioner could not produce any original bills and there was evidence to the effect that he was working in the place where rules allowed for reimbursement. He was Junior Technician in Engineering College at Bathinda. At the trial, he stated that he was originally admitted in the Civil Hospital at Abohar and later transferred to DMC Hospital at Ludhiana. He also stated that he remained on bed for four months but again offered no evidence about the period of hospitalization and the treatment that was accorded to him. I have no better details even in the grounds of appeal. It has been urged that he had spent Rs. 2 lakhs for medicines, operation fees and doctor charges and also spent about Rs. 50,000/- more towards other expenses. I cannot provide for any compensation towards medical expenses without offering any evidence. I have again no material to suggest that there was any particular injury and that he had taken treatment in any hospital. If he had been originally admitted in Abohar and later transferred to DMC Hospital at Ludhiana, I will make a modest assessment of Rs. 2,000/- for transport and provide for another Rs. 3,000/- towards trauma for the suffering that he must have undergone. The compensation shall be Rs. 5,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. The right of enforcement shall be available against the Insurance Company. The award of dismissal is set aside and the appeal in FAO No. 1936 of 2000 is allowed to the above extent.

The appeal in FAO No. 1937 of 2000 is against the assessment to compensation for damages to his vehicle. As per the appellant, he had spent about Rs. 70,000/- for repairs of the car. PW3-Raj Kumar was examined to show that the car had been left in their garage and he had given him rough estimate under Ex. P3. The document, however, was not in his hand, but it bore the signatures of the Work Manager, who was reported to have inspected the vehicle. He admitted in evidence that no photographs had been taken of the damaged vehicle at the relevant time. He also admitted that for actual repairs effected, they would have supplied the actual bills, but the same had not been filed.

The Tribunal observed that even the rough estimate was suspicious. The engine and chassis numbers had been interpolated later and the document did not bear the clear nexus about the damage to the vehicle owned by the claimant.

Here again, I must point out that the appellant has not produced any appropriate evidence for a reappraisal. The court cannot give compensation on mere estimates produced before it. There was simply no justification for the appellant not to produce the actual cash bills which must have been available with him. He was not an illiterate, but a responsible technical worker in an established company. He had been as negligent in the manner of offering evidence before the Tribunal as he was speaking for his own injuries. All the fallibilities that this case suffers for assessment for personal injuries are also attendant on the alleged damages to the vehicle. The rough estimate given by the surveyor was also left without appropriate proof. However, I would only assume that the entire claim could not have been dismissed even for the lackadaisical approach adopted by the claimant in giving no proper evidence. That is the bane in this justification. It was a case of a serious collision that resulted in death of a passenger in a car. The damage must have been fairly serious especially when a smaller maruti car had dashed against a heavier vehicle such as a truck. A damage as severe as to cause death must also have resulted in serious damage to the vehicle. I assess a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as payable on the mere estimates given by the claimant, as deficient as the quality of evidence is. The Insurance Company will be liable to pay Rs. 6,000/- being the statutory sum required to be covered u/s 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rest of the amount shall be enforced against the owner and driver of the truck. The amount assessed will attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. The award stands modified and the appeal in FAO No. 1937 of 2000 is allowed to the above extent.