PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2016-9-1
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 16,2016

PARVEEN KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Pritam Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SURINDER GUPTA,J. - (1.) This is appeal by claimant Parveen Kumar, who was aged 14 years on 27.03.1991 when he met with an accident with truck bearing registration No.HRN -8898 (later referred to as 'the offending vehicle'), for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (later referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 15.12.1992. Note: Record of the Tribunal and the appeal file got burnt in a fire incident in the concerned branch in January, 2011, as such, the appeal file was reconstructed and the counsel for the parties were requested to supply the copies of the pleadings and evidence available with them. This appeal is being decided on perusal of reconstructed appeal file and the copies of documents supplied by learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The accident has been described in para 24 of the claim petition which reads as follows: - "That on 27.03.1991 at about 6.30 P.M., the applicant along with his father Shri Ishwar Dass and his uncle Shri Shiv Kumar after closing the shop were coming to their residence. The applicant was sitting on the cycle which was being plied by his father and his uncle Shiv Kumar was going on another cycle. When they reached near main road Bus Stand (old) both the cycles were stopped for purchasing vegetables. The father of the applicant (sic claimant) gave his cycle to the applicant (sic claimant) and the applicant(claimant) just started on the cycle when ruck No.HRN -8898 came from the opposite side at a very fast speed, and without blowing any horn etc. struck against the applicant while coming to wrong side. The driver was rash and negligent while driving the truck and due to this the accident was caused as the driver of truck drover the truck on wrong side and struck the truck against the applicant and over run the right leg of the applicant. The truck stopped after covering a long distance. The driver of truck wanted to run away from the spot but was overpowered by the father, uncle and other persons present at the spot. The applicant was rushed to the hospital. The driver later on ran away from the spot. The applicant received serious injuries as a result of this accident."
(3.) The claimant has stated that after the accident, he was firstly taken to Civil Hospital, Ellnabad and then to Kolmet Hospital, New Delhi. He regained consciousness on 31.03.1991 and remained admitted in Kolmet Hospital from 28.03.1991 to 26.04.1991. He had undergone four operations. After his release from Kolmet Hospital, he was shifted to Goyal Cottage, Karol Bag, New Delhi from where he was being taken to Kolmet Hospital daily for dressing of his wounds. He was then taken to Jaipur for fixing of artificial limb. He stayed there for three days on his first visit and then for 20 days on his second visit. However, the artificial limb could not be fixed as the wounds had not yet healed. The doctor at Jaipur told father of the claimant that artificial limb would not be successful in this case as for this, his leg would have to be amputated above knee upto thigh. For amputation of leg upto thigh, the claimant had to spend Rs.1 lac in hospital like Kolmet Hospital, where he got treatment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.