Vijay Kumar and Others vs Gurbachan Singh and Orthes

J.M. Tandon, J.—Vijay Kumar (aged 13 years) and his parents (Madan Lal and Krishna Rani) claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by Vijay Kumar in an accident with truck No. PNL-2223 owned and driven by Partap Singh and Gurbachan Singh Respondents respectively and insured with New Great Insurance Company of India Limited, Respondent, at 10.45 a.m. on March 28, 1970, near bye-pass Adarsh Nagar, Jullundur City. The learned ''Tribunal'', Jullundur vide his award dated March 31, 1973, allowed Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to Vijay Kumar alone. It is against this award that the present appeal has been filed by Vijay Kumar and his parents.

The Tribunal framed 9 issues, including the following three:

(1) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by Gurbachan Singh Respondent?

(2) Was there any contributory negligence on the part of Vijay Kumar Petitioner? If so, to what effect?

(3) To what compensation, if any, are the Petitioners entitled and from whom, out of the Respondents?

The Tribunal found that the parents of Vijay Kumar have no locus-standi to claim compensation. The accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Gurbachan Singh Respondent and there was no contributory negligence on the part of Vijay Kumar. Vijay Kumar alone was entitled to Rs. 1,000/- by way of compensation. In this appeal, the issue regarding the quantum of compensation has only been assailed.

P.W. Dr. Shanghare Singh of Civil Hospital, Jullundur stated that he examined Vijay Kumar on March 28, 1970, at 2.30 p.m. and found the following injuries on him:

(1) Compound fracture of left femur in the middle of thigh.

(2) Lacerated wound behind left knee joint 10��2�� muscle deep.

(3) Abrasion in back of right elbow joint 1���1".

(4) Abrasion in front of knee joint 1���1�.

(5) Abrasion on right ankle joint 1��1�.

The doctor stated that Vijay Kumar was in plaster when he was discharged from the hospital.

P.W. Madan Lal is the father of Vijay Kumar. He stated that Vijay Kumar remained confined to the hospital for more than a month as a result of the accident. He could not attend classes for six months. He spent Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- on his treatment. He obtained receipts from the hospital marked A/1-25. Vijay Kumar was given extra food and was got treated privately as well. The leg of Vijay Kumar has not been set right fully. He had kept account of the expenses. P.W. Vijay Kumar claimant stated that immediately after the accident a weight was tied to his leg for 21 days and thereafter it was put under plaster. He remained in the hospital for li months. He remained confined to bed for six months. He cannot run. His leg is still very weak. No evidence was led in rebuttal.

It is from this evidence that we have to find out as to what compensation Vijay Kumar is entitled to.

The father of Vijay Kumar produced receipts marked A/1-25, the total of which comes to about Rs. 500/-. He has stated that Vijay Kumar was got treated privately as well. He was given extra food.

Keeping in view the fact that Vijay Kumar remained confined to bed for six months on account of fracture of his leg, the amount of Rs. 500/- by way of medical expenses allowed by the learned Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. I increase this amount to Rs. 1,000/-.

Vijay Kumar suffered a compound fracture of left femur in the middle of thigh. He was confined to the hospital for 11 months. His leg was tied with a weight for 21 days and then was put under plaster. He remained confined to bed for six months. The learned Tribunal has allowed Rs. 500/- to Vijay Kumar on account of fracture involving pain and suffering. The compensation allowed on this account is highly inadequate. Keeping in view the nature of fracture and the duration of suffering, it would be reasonable to allow Rs. 6,000/- on this account.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that Vijay Kumar Appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the claim till the date of payment. The learned Counsel for the insurance company which is admittedly liable to pay the compensation, has argued that the Appellant is not entitled to interest. In my opinion, the Appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the award of the Tribunal till its payment.

In the result, I accept the appeal'' and modify the award of the Tribunal to the extent that the compensation payable to Vijay Kumar is increased to Rs. 7,000/-. Vijay Kumar will be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of its payment. The compensation awarded shall be paid by the insurance company. The appeal on behalf of the parents of Vijay Kumar is dismissed. No order as to costs.