LAWS(P&H)-1999-2-28

HARBANS SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

Decided On February 12, 1999
HARBANS SINGH Appellant
V/S
JOGINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harbans Singh, appellant herein was going on Madhya Marg, Chandigarh on 18.11.1992 when he was hit by a Maruti Car. He sustained multiple injuries. He remained admitted in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh and later on in a private hospital at Ambala City, upto 6.12.1992. Appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. Petition was resisted. Respondents denied the involvement of the car in the accident. Respondent Insurance Company in its written statement took a preliminary objection that respondent 1 was not the owner of the Maruti Car at the time of the accident. After framing of issues, the claimant-appellant examined four witnesses including himself. On the other hand, respondents did not lead any evidence except tendering in evidence certified copy of the insurance policy. Exhibit R.1 and copy of the driving licence of respondent 2 Mark 'A'.

(2.) Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence produced on record came to the conclusion that the appellant suffered injuries in the motor accident on 18.11.1992 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car CHK 1030, but there is no proof of the fact that the said car at the relevant time was being driven by Simran Sandhu, respondent. The Claims Tribunal thus awarded a compensation of Rs. 11,585/- with interest, by its award dated 31.7.1995. Hence this appeal at the instance of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) Learned counsel after relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 298, and two judgments of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. Harbhajan Singh and Ors., (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 214 and Kuljit Singh v. Harsh Kumar Trihan and Ors., (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 524, submitted that the appellant at the time of the accident was working as Accountant (Muneem) with Fancy Dupatta House Ambala City at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/- and on account of the injuries and permanent disability suffered by him in the accident, his efficiency to work has been reduced. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 27.5% because of shortening of right leg by 2.5 cms, but no compensation has been awarded to him for permanent disability, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life etc. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Claims Tribunal gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the car in question, and the compensation awarded is on the higher side, and in any case, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation.