STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SAT PAL BAJAJ ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are connected. FAO No. 2667 of 1998 is for enhancement of claim for compensation and FAO No. 2611 of 1998 is by the State against the assessment of compensation of Rs. 2,58,000/ -. The injuries suffered by the Petitioner were fracture of pelvic bone, rupture of urethra and the resultant Neurogenic impotence and traumatic oste -arthritis of right hip.

(2.) THE accident was said to have taken place while the Appellant was attempting to get down from the bus while it was still in motion. The driver and the conductor gave evidence to the effect that the accident arose only on account of the negligent act of the claimant in attempting to get down when the vehicle was being reversed. The Tribunal did not still find any negligence on part of the claimant on account of the fact that there was inconsistency in versions of the driver and the conductor. The conductor said that the claimant was trying to get down from the back door of the bus, while the driver was saying that the claimant was attempting to get down from the front door. I do not propose to re -examine the issue of negligence although it is strenuously argued by the counsel for the State that the negligence was not established and in any event it must have been a case of contributory negligence. The injuries were fairly extensive and when the Tribunal had found the question of negligence in favour of the claimant, I am loathe to examine the same especially in the scheme of law when Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act even recognizes the issue of strict liability for cases of death and permanent disability. The two Doctors who has treated him were examined and the Doctor who entered the MLR immediately after the accident was also examined. He was initially taking treatment from PGI from 25.2.1996 to 6.3.1996 and later he taken treatment in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at Delhi. The medical bills proved on record showed that he had incurred about Rs. 15,000/ -as expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,58,000/ - that included also a claim for litigation expenses. Learned Counsel appearing for the State would contend that litigation expenses can be only a matter of cost and cannot be a part of the award to be provided with interest alongwith the other heads of claim. Learned Counsel also points out that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 48,000/ -towards loss of income and has again provided for Rs. 96,000/ -towards future loss of income. It has provided an amount of Rs. 80,000/ -for the impotency caused. Several heads of claim were definitely not tenable for, a loss of income must be based on the extent to which the injury could impact his earning skills. Although the claimant contended that he was engaged in import & export business, no document had been produced. It is not even clear from the evidence as to the nature of activity that he was engaged in and the income that he was earning. I reassess the compensation and tabulate the same as below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_535_LAWS(P&H)3_20111.htm</FRM>

(3.) I have assessed the income to be Rs. 15,000/ -notionally and I will assume the injuries where he had severe restriction of movement due to the fracture of the waist which was certified by the Doctor to have resulted in serious disability that cannot be still cured will take the loss of earning capacity to have resulted in 50%.