OM PARKASH Vs. SATVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has assailed award dated 14th January, 1994 whereby the appellant was granted compensation of only Rs.5,000/- by the Tribunal.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the appellant met with an accident on 6th October, 1983. The appellant was on his motorcycle bearing No.DEV 8361 and the offending vehicle was a Haryana Roadways bus bearing No.HRU 882 being driven by respondent No.1. As a result of this accident, the appellant received head injuries and became unconscious on the spot itself. He started bleeding from nose and ears. He was removed to Moolchand Hospital wherefrom after initial treatment; he was removed to AIIMS Hospital. The appellant testified before the Tribunal that he was discharged from AIIMS on 16th October, 1983. He proved MLC showing extent of external injuries and the accident having taken place on 6th October, 1983 at 2 p.m. The MLC prepared at Moolchand showed that he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. However, PW-3 testified that he was admitted to AIIMS Hospital. PW-3 also placed on record MLC of the petitioner prepared at AIIMS Hospital. The learned Tribunal observed that the two MLCs did not tally with each other since in the MLC of AIIMS, the arrival time was given as 3:25 p.m. on 6th October, 1983 but nothing was stated that an MLC was also prepared at Moolchand Hospital. The Tribunal also observed that column regarding date of admission and date of discharge were lying blank and, therefore, the Tribunal refused to consider the MLC Exhibit PW 3/A on the ground that it did not support the contention of the appellant that he was discharged from AIIMS on 16th October, 1983. The Tribunal considered that the only fact established on record was that the appellant was taken to Moolchand Hospital after the accident with a history of unconsciousness, bleeding from nose and ears and then he was removed to AIIMS Hospital. No fracture of his skull or chest was seen although x-rays were done and no record regarding treatment of the injured was available. Therefore, the Tribunal did not grant any compensation to the injured either in respect of the amount spent on treatment, medicines or on conveyance, special diet, etc. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings and that is why, the appellant is aggrieved.

(3.) The Tribunal while deciding the issue of negligence had observed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HRU 882 driven by respondent No.1. The Tribunal had noted down the severance of the accident and the injuries received by the injured. The very fact that after initial admission of the injured in Moolchand Hospital, he was referred for treatment to AIIMS Hospital or to Safdarjung Hospital shows that the treatment to be given to the injured was not of the nature of first aid type. Had it been of the first aid type, Moolchand Hospital would have discharged the injured instead of sending him to AIIMS Hospital. The injured was still unconscious when he was removed to AIIMS Hospital. There seems to be some confusion about date of discharge but that could not have made the Tribunal to disbelieve the testimony of injured that he remained admitted in hospital from 6th October, 1983 to 16th October, 1983. It was not such a period for which the admission of the injured in the hospital was not probable looking at the fact that he had received head injuries and some internal injuries, resulting into bleeding from nose and ears. It would have been normal for a hospital to keep him under observation because of internal injuries and head injuries. The further record produced by the injured shows that the injured had to undergo intensive physiotherapy and remained as an outdoor patient of AIIMS Hospital for considerable long time. All these factors were ignored by the Tribunal on the ground of disparity between the record of AIIMS Hospital and Moolchand Hospital and disparity between the testimony of record clerk and the record.