GURDIAL SINGH Vs. SAWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 13th April, 1982 at about 7 pm. near Milk Bar Morinda, Gurdial Singh was run over by Bus No. PBA 4326 belonging to Punjab Roadways, Amritsar Depot. His left clavicle and temporal bones were fractured besides sustaining other minor injuries. He is alleged to have accompanied Gurmit Singh on his cycle, and a little while ago he had got down from the cycle to urinate and when he was coming back after urinating, met with accident. Gurmit Singh was eye witness of the occurrence. On 11th August, 1983 a petition was filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The petition was presented on his behalf by his wife Ajmer Kaur as next friend on the plea that be had become insane due to the brain/head injury. The description of medical treatment and the places at which he remained admitted with details of expenses were given.

(2.) THE petition was contested by the State of Punjab on which the following issues were framed :

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I am of the view that the decision of the Court below on issues Nos. 3 and 4 deserves to be reversed. From the medical evidence, which has remained up-rebutted, it is proved that the injured sustained head injury and his temporal bones were fractured. Soon after the accident he was removed to local Hospital and then under their advice he was shifted to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh (hereinafter called 'the PGL'). At PGI he remained as an indoor patient upto 23rd April, 1982 and on that very day he was removed to Civil Hospital, Ropar, where he remained as an indoor patient till 2nd June, 1982. Dr. Rajinder Saxena of PGI is PW4 and Dr. Krishan Walia of Civil Hospital, Ropar, is PW3. From their statements, the grievous nature of injuries and the permanent damage to the brain is writ large. According to Dr. Krishan Walia when the injured was discharged on 2nd June, 1982 he was not able to understand anything and was also not responding to any verbal command. His opinion was that it was difficult to say as to how long he would take to recover from that stage if at all he recovers. After so much of evidence was led and the statement of the wife recorded was that he was still of unsound mind and did not know what was good and bad, it was the duty of the State to lead evidence in rebuttal to show that he was in fit state of mind.