ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the claimant was found entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/ -.

(2.) THE claimant Santokh Singh sustained serious injuries while driving this motor-cycle he was involved in an accident with Car No. PUL-9812. This happened on November 1, 1977, at about 9 P. M. on the Ludhiana--Phagwara Road. it was the finding of the tribunal that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. A sum of Rs. 38,500/- was awarded as compensation to Santokh Singh for the injuries suffered by him. According to the findings given by the learned Single Judge, Santokh Singh in the said accident, suffered serious injuries of brain and that they had disasterous effect upon him. According to Dr. T. B. Shadkangi, Santokh Singh, was discharged with three neurological deficiencies; these being : 1. Left hemipares is ; 2. Disphonia and slow speech ; and

(3.) IMPAIREMENT of higher functions. Report of Dr. Pathak of the P. G. I. was also placed on record which showed that on physical examination, Santokh Singh, claimant showed residual left hemipares is in the left upper extremity. In the assessment of his mental function, the examination revealed disturbances of hearing, smelling as well as of diplopia (double vision ). The medical, report was duly discussed by the learned Single Judge and was found that such being the physical and mental state of Santokh Singh, the next point to consider here is the effect his injuries have had on his daily life and his earning capacity. In this respect, as mentioned earlier, there is the statement of his wife A. W. 7 Harpal Kaur that he was not now capable of doing any work and could not even make any statement. Unfortunately, the claimant did not choose to appear in the witness box to enable the Court to see for itself his state and condition. Ultimately, the compensation was calculated under various heads and a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was allowed after enhancement. 3. This appeal has been virtually filed on behalf of the insurance company though the driver and the owner of the car have also been impleaded as appellants. There is no power of attorney signed by them in favour of their Advocate who filed the appeal. In these circumstances, the insurance company could not be allowed to challenge the amount of compensation. However, the learned counsel for the appellant cited Smt. Narinder Kaur v. Jagan Nath, (1986-2) 90 P. L. R. 260, Satbir Singh v. Balwant Singh, (1987-2) 94 P. L. R. 303 and Vijay Kumar v. Haryana State, 1990 A. C. J. 606, which have no applicability to the present case.