SURAJ BHAN Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS FAO arises out of a judgment/award dated 25.7.1990 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, in claim petition No. 25 MACT of 5.6.1989/27.8.1989, awarding a sum of Rs. 7,700/- in an injury case against a claim of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

(2.) IT appears that on the date of accident, i.e., 22.6.1988, claimant- appellant Suraj Bhan with one Raj Kumar was going on his bicycle from Hisar to Mayyer, on the left side of the road. He was struck by a Haryana Roadways Bus (HRU-2033), near Vidya Devi Jindal School, which was being driven rashly and negligently. It appeared from the opposite direction and dashed against the Cyclists who fell down and sustained injuries. However, they were shifted to the Civil Hospital, Hisar, in the bus itself. They were referred for further treatment to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak. Injured Raj Kumar succumbed to the injuries, whereas appellant Suraj Bhan remained hospitalised as an indoor patient from 24.6.1988 to 17.7.1988. As per the claim petition of appellant Suraj Bhan, on the date of accident, he was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month as a labourer and he also incurred the medical expenses of Rs. 10,000/- during his stay as indoor patient in the hospital from 24.6.1988 to 17.7.1988 and, thereafter also he has to spend money on the medical treatments. It is contended that his aged father, wife and four children were dependent on his earning. It is further contended that the claimant suffered physical pain, mental shock, loss of earning and permanent disability in the accident.

(3.) ON due consideration of rival submissions, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The accident took place way back in 1988. The appellant did not produce his medical bills to substantiate his claim for medical expenses. Even the Doctor, who appeared to prove the disability, candidly conceded that the victim has not received any treatment from him. He had not examined the victim prior to 28.11.1989. Thus he was not in a position to give any reason for the shortening of the leg of the victim. He only stated that the victim would have suffered the injuries some time about five years ago. In the certificate (Ex.P-3), even the identification mark of the claimant was not mentioned. He has also added that the disability suffered by the victim can improve with the passage of time. Even the X-Ray report was not proved by the Doctor. The injuries as pointed out in the report (Ex.P-4) are simple in nature. Though injury No. 2, said to have been received on forehead, was advised X-Ray but the X-Ray report has not been proved. Dr.Arora, who has given disability certificate to the extent of 20%, has cut a sorry figure in the witness box as he could not explain the basis for issuance of the said certificate. Admittedly, the appellant has claimed to have been earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. Even in the absence of credible medical evidence, as the appellant remained hospitalised for a considerable period, the Tribunal has assessed the medical expenses for the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Since the appellant suffered loss on account of hospitalisation in his earning, a proportionate amount of Rs. 700/- has been awarded on that count, looking to his monthly income. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for pain, shock and suffering. Thus, the compensation amount appears to be just and reasonable, and moreover, it was awarded 18 years back in 1988. Hence, FAO No. 914 of 1990, being devoid of merits, is, hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.