JASPHUL SINGH ADVOCATE Vs. BALWANT SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. In a case where the claimant had contended that the first Respondent, who was the owner/driver of the motorcycle, was responsible for the accident resulting by the fall of the motorcycle, the Tribunal found the claimant was himself responsible for the fall and he had been negligent while being seated on the motorcycle. However, for the fracture and disability that had arisen on account of such injuries, the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,000/ - on no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE contention of the Appellant is that it was not merely a case of the Appellant falling from the motorcycle, in which situation alone, it could be stated that he had been negligent, but in a case where a motorcycle fell down and even the first Respondent as a driver had fallen down from the motorcycle, it was wrong for the Tribunal to find that there had been no negligence on the part of the first Respondent. It is a case where admittedly the first Respondent applied brakes on seeing a vehicle coming from the opposite side and the statement of the first Respondent was that he had to stop because of dazzling lights of the other vehicle and he had also admitted in the written statement that the vehicle fell down when he applied the brakes. A careful driver does not cause the vehicle to fall down by applying brakes. I am of the view that negligence has to be attributed to the driver of the motorcycle and compensation must have been awarded, taking the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle having been established. I, therefore, set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold that the first Respondent was responsible for the accident.

(3.) THE claimant had given evidence to the effect that he had spent about Rs. 30,000/ - on the entire bills that had been filed. PW4 stated that he had charged Rs. 5,500 for operation and medicines, plaster, plates and screws were all brought by the claimant himself. The claimant, who was a lawyer, ought to have known that every item of expenditure would require to be substantiated in a Tribunal for a successful prosecution of the claim and cannot leave anything to conjecture. I cannot accept the evidence that he had spent Rs. 30,000/ -. The documents, which had been filed in Court, had been merely assigned Mark 1 to Mark 9 and I have seen. There was no reason why they could not have been accepted as evidence. All of them are medical bills for purchase of medicines and all the documents were required to be taken to provide evidence in summary proceeding. Mark 1 to Mark 9 total up to Rs. 5,000/ - and having regard to the fact that PW4 had also given evidence to the effect that he had charged Rs. 5,500/ - and PW5 had also stated in evidence that he had charged the claimant Rs. 450/ -, I would provide to the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000/ -. I would also provide for transportation expenses of Rs. 2,500/ - and for pain and suffering for a fracture for the leg and for surgical intervention Rs. 10,000/ -. The disability that has been noticed for the claimant was shortening of the limb, I will provide for the inconvenience that he had to suffer for the rest of his life at Rs. 10,000/ -. The overall compensation will be Rs. 37,500/ - and the amount in excess over what has been already awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 12% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the Insurance Company as the insurer for the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling.