(1.) On 19th February, 1999 a foreign based couple namely Baljit Singh Grewal, husband and Renu Grewal, wife both the present appellants-claimants left Ludhiana in their Maruti Car No. PB-07B- 3771 for going to Ropar and while on Bela-Ropar road in the area of village Tauwal, a truck bearing No.PUR-3251 came in a rash and negligent manner being driven by Surinder Singh and hit the car of the claimants from the opposite side, leading to injuries to the couple. Claimant-husband filed claim petition No.75 dated 19.8.1999 titled as Baljit Singh Grewal vs. Surinder Singh and others, whereas, the wife filed claim petition No.74 dated 19.08.1999 titled as Renu Grewal vs. Surinder Singh and others. Both the claim petitions stood allowed vide common award dated 10.08.2001 after both these maters were consolidated. Feeling aggrieved over the meagreness of the compensation, the claimants have filed these two separate appeals. Being arising out of the same very award, relating to same very accident and for the sake of brevity are being disposed off together. Heard at length, learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the records of the case.
(2.) The lone ground on which these assailments have been made harbours over the averment that the claimant-Baljit Singh Grewal, as a consequence of injuries due to fracture of femur right hand with fracture of basal neck femur and fracture of ribs had remained hospitalised and has to spend money on various facilities, treatment and was out of employment which was never considered by the Tribunal. It is also contended that the wife had got fractured her hip bone due to which her right leg was shortened and, therefore, needed hip replacement. The hospitalisation and expenses incurred on her treatment, being deprived of her earnings and her having spent huge amount on her treatment were never taken note of. The same have been controverted by Mr. Dewan, learned counsel for the Insurer arguing that there is not even an iota of evidence as to the permanent disability of both the claimants much less that of loss of income which has never been established by any means.
(3.) Appreciating these submissions which revolve around findings upon issue No.4, the claimants have examined PW1 Dr. Ravinder Kaur, Medical Officer, C.H.C., who, on the basis of emergency record of the hospital Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 has proved emergency admission of both these claimants-injured and their subsequent reference to better hospital and which fact is brought about in the respective statements of the claimants Renu Grewal as PW4 and Baljit Singh Grewal as PW6 which is materially corroborated by PW5 Dr. Pawan Dhingra, who has proved medical record of claimant-Baljit Singh Grewal by way of Ex.PW5/2 to EX.PW5/4 and the likely expenses incurred during the treatment. To the very query of the Court, Mr. Sarwan Singh, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has readily accepted that there is no proof of permanent disability of the couple brought on the record which deters the Court from considering that aspect of the matter. The evidence proved by these witnesses including PW7 Baljinder Singh and PW8 Manjit Kaur, who had been engaged by the husband and the wife respectively for attending to them have sought to bring about the likely expenses, they had been charging for their services. Since initial onus lays upon the claimants to establish the grant of compensation and even the fact of the avocation and likely loss of earnings have not been documentarily proved on the record is one of the distressing feature that has been pointed out by Mr. Suvir Dewan on behalf of the respondent-Insurer. It is apparent from the impugned award as has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Tribunal had not taken into consideration all these relevant factors to arrive at a just and equitable compensation to the claimants and has only granted too meagre a compensation of Rs. 2,22,000/- and Rs. 57,070/- respectively along with interest @9% per annum which includes Rs.7500/- by way of damages to the car. The guiding star in the injury cases is the settled position of law laid down in R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, 1995 110 PunLR 298and in the light of the same the claimants are certainly entitled to the following compensation:-