(O&M) Jeet Ram Khokhar v. State Of Haryana Etc.
Date of decision: 28th January, 2015 Jeet Ram Khokhar
Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
Respondents
1.
Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.
Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:
Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. D.R. Singla, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.
None for respondent No.4.
Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate for respondents No. 5.
! The appellant/claimant Jeet Ram Khokhar before this Court is impugning a consolidated Award dated 21.08.1995 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak and is seeking enhancement of compensation.
On account of destruction of records in fire not much is available before this Court to appreciate the things. After hearing the arguments of Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the claimant/appellant; Mr. D.R. Singla, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana representing respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate on behalf of respondents No. 5. The findings as to the manner of accident have never been put to challenge which is by way of issue No.1 whereby it has been held by the learned Tribunal that the accident leading to injuries to the present claimant/appellant and others was on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent/driver of offending bus bearing registration No.HR91094363. The established case as has been argued on behalf of the two sides reflects that the claimant/appellant has received fracture of right patella, left radius/ulna and nasal bone and at the relevant time he was working as Principal in Government Senior Secondary School and according to the salary certificate Ex.PJ his salary is proved to be 6,220 per month.
The learned Tribunal as per the evidence has rightly concluded that the claimant has suffered disability of 45% and it has been rightly contended on behalf of the respondents that it could not be taken to be the whole body disability and the deposition of Dr.S.K. Moda PW1 has brought about this fact. The learned Tribunal has grossly erred by awarding a lump sum compensation of 50,000
without looking into the evidence and the claim of the claimant. The contention on behalf of the respondents that being a Government official the claimant is entitled to medical reimbursement, certainly cannot be controverted on behalf of the appellant. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered each and every aspect of the matter which needs to be considered in awarding compensation for such an injury.
#$$#%&#'( ) *+$ %$,-.%'(#/ ,()#$* (0($*'
1995 (2) PLR 298 SC, is certainly entitled to compensation under the following heads: (A) Pecuniary Compensation (i) Compensation assessed on account of medical expenses 40,000/9 (ii) Compensation assessed on account of loss of earnings during treatment 20,000/9
55,000/9 (iii) Compensation assessed on account of loss of earnings due to physical disability 15,000/9 (iv) Compensation assessed on account of services of attendant, special diet and conveyance (B) Non9Pecuniary Compensation 15,000/9 (i) Compensation assessed on account of physical pain, mental agony and sense of wrong (ii) Compensation assessed on account of loss of beauty/pleasures of life 45,000/9 $#- !1!111/9 Therefore, total compensation comes to 1,90,000 (rupees one lac ninety thousand).
Besides this, the claimant is also entitled to interest @7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal till realization. Interim compensation paid, if any, shall be adjusted. Rest of the stipulations laid down by the Tribunal need not be disturbed.
In the light of these discussions, the impugned Award being certainly on the lower side is modified by way of acceptance of the appeal in those terms.
.
/ #%2#,34!1