GIANI RAM Vs. DHARAMBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application for impleading the legal representatives of respondent No.2 is allowed and the legal representatives of respondent No.1 are taken on record.

(2.) BOTH the appeals are connected arising out of the same accident for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The accident took place on 15.10.1988 when the claimant Giani Ram, who was riding the motorcycle, was returning to his village along with his brother -in -law Maha Ram who was a pillion rider, dashed against the tractor of respondent No.1 bearing registration No.HYM -2881 coming from the opposite direction. Due to the impact both of them fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal has held that the tractor of respondent No.1 was involved in the accident and the liability of satisfying the award was cast on the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.4 before the Tribunal. I have already reversed the finding of the Tribunal and allowed the appeals filed by the insurance company in FAO No.610 and 611 of 1991 giving them right of recovery against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle after satisfying the claim of the claimants.

(3.) THE appeal in FAO No.233 of 1991 has been filed at the instance of claimant Giani Ram aged 28 years, who was working as Beldar on temporary basis in Delhi Municipal Corporation at a salary of Rs. 900/ - per month and was also said to have augmenting his income from agricultural land at Rs. 1,000/ -. He contended that he received serious injuries in the accident and was admitted in Bawal Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 15.10.1988 to 18.10.1988 and from there he was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak upto 02.11.1988. He claimed that he suffered a fracture of left mandible and left leg and operated thrice on leg, wire was tied around his teeth which remained for four months. He had to undergo for follow up treatment twice a month which cost his pocket Rs. 1,000/ - per visit. He produced some vouchers Ex.P17 to P48 and claimed that he spent Rs. 55,000/ - on medicines, conveyance and treatment. He was feeling difficulty in walking, his left leg had become short and he had difficulty in taking his food.