LAWS(P&H)-1987-8-143

JOGINDER SINGH Vs. GURNAM SINGH

Decided On August 14, 1987
JOGINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
GURNAM SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the owner of the offending truck against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, dated 31st March, 1981, whereby a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was awarded by way of compensation to the injured claimant Gurnam Singh.

(2.) In an accident on 1st October, 1980, at 10.00 P.M., which was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck, Gurnam Singh received injuries which disabled him permanently and reduced his capacity to earn. According to his claim petition, he was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and now he has been deprived of the same because of the injuries suffered by him. He claimed a sum of Rs. 2-1/4 lacs as compensation. The learned Tribunal relying on the medical evidence produced by Gurnam Singh found that he got injuries on his left elbow and on the right knee and a punctured wound on the anterior aspect of right knee apart from undisplaced fracture of inferior pubic ramus of the right side with subluxation of left sacro-illac joint, and that it was the fracture which had crippled him which fracture, in the opinion of the doctor, had no treatment except rest to the patient and that this type of dislocation was sure to leave permanent disability and would make the patient unfit for heavy work of physical nature, though in cross-examination, the doctor made it clear that the wound and fracture would have been cured within a period of three months in normal course. Gurnam Singh appeared as PW 3 and deposed that he could not move about freely and that because of the fracture he was unable to perform the work he was doing before the accident. It is also in his evidence that he was helping his family in agriculture and dairy farming by driving tractor and other odd jobs of physical nature. On the basis of this evidence the learned Tribunal allowed the compensation under the following heads :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after allowing the amount on account of pain and suffering, the claimant was not entitled to the amount of Rs. 57,600/- for loss of earning capacity. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the same compensation over again. Moreover, the circumstances of the case did not warrant application of the multiplier of 16 after holding the annual dependency to be Rs. 3,600/- to the injured claimant. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the amount awarded was too excessive and the claimant was entitled to Rs. 50,000/- in all. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the multiplier of 16 had been rightly applied. Even in injury cases, the principle of multiplier could be applied, and in support of this contention he referred to Rajnish Chopra v. Ram Singh,1986 ACJ 481. He also filed cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation.