Vijay Kumar vs Ahsok Kumar and Others

H.S. Bedi, J.—On 24.12.1986, Vijay Kumar appellant was injured in an accident, involving truck No. PBR-1187, driven by respondent Teja Singh. He suffered serious injuries and was first removed to the B.B.M.B. Hospital, Nangal and remained admitted therein, add was thereafter referred to the PGI, Chandigarh on 22.4.1987. A claim petition was thereafter filed by Vijay Kumar alongwith an application for condonation of delay, pleading that he could not file the petition earlier on account of his physical incapacity.

On a reply filed by the respondents, the following issues were framed:-

Whether the accident in question in which Vijay Kumar sustained injuries was the result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PBR 1187 by its driver Teja Singh respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPP

Whether the claim petition is barred by time? OPR

To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom? OPP

Relief.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar in its award dated 23.5.1988 held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Teja Singh. On issue No. 2, it was noted that the accident had taken place on 24.12.1986, but as the petition had been filed on 9.11.1987, the same was time barred. The Tribunal (on the question of compensation), observed that the claimant would be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 47,7000/- which included Rs. 25,000/- as general damages alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum under various heads, but in view of the findings on issue No. 2, it was held that no amount was in fact payable.

The present appeal has been filed by Vijay Kumar alone.

At the very outset, Mr. R.M. Suri, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya and Others, to contend that as the appeal had been pending in this Court, the question of limitation could not longer be an impediment to deny the appellant''s claim. The tact that the petition would no longer be time barred in the light of the aforesaid judgment, has not been denied by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The finding on issue No. 2 is accordingly reversed.

I have also gone through the evidence on record with regard to the quantum of compensation determined under issue No. 3. It appears from the documents in evidence that the appellant was still undergoing treatment for the injuries that he had suffered. Two certificates given by Dr. A.K. Mandal, Assistant Processor, Department of Urology, PGI, Chandigarh have been produced by filing a Civil Misc. application, which too indicate that the appellant would have to undergo follow up treatment for a long time. It is also clear from the out patient ticket that the appellant has suffered fracture in both the hips. Mr. Suri has also produced before me today in Court the out patient ticket of the appellant, which shows that he had been visiting the PGI, Chandigarh for follow up treatment right upto the year 1999 and that he had difficulty in passing urine which required regular and periodical follow up treatment from the PGI. It is also clear from the medical evidence that the appellant had suffered serious fractures on both his hips bones and a rupture of the urethra. I am thus of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- given as general damages is thus not adequate. This amount is enhanced by Rs. 50,000/- making a total amount of Rs. 75,000/-. Compensation under other heads is maintained as it is. It is however, directed that the interest payable to the appellant would be at the rate of 12 per annum, the appeal is allowed in the above terms.