S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) SEVERAL passengers were injured and some were killed too when an accident occurred between two buses, the Punjab Roadways bus PUS 7608 and the bus PUX 2381 coming from the opposite direction. One of the persons killed in this accident was Narinder Kumar and amongst the injured was the claimant Murat Singh. This accident took place on January 14, 1980, at about 7.30 a.m. on the Grand Trunk Road in Jalandhar Cantt. The Tribunal held both the bus drivers to be equally to blame for the accident A sum of Rs. 61,500 was awarded as compensation to the widow and the children of Narinder Kumar deceased and Rs. 10,000 to Murat Singh for the injuries suffered by him.
(2.) THE evidence on record shows that Narinder Kumar was about 40 years of age at the time of his death. He was employed as a draftsman at a salary of over Rs. 690 per month. The Tribunal, keeping in view the circumstances and the situation of the deceased and the claimants, rightly took the dependency to be Rs. 500 per month and the appropriate multiplier to be applied to be 16. Calculated at this rate, the compensation payable was correctly worked out at Rs. 96,000, but the Tribunal then fell in error in deducting from this amount family pension payable to the claimants. Admittedly, no such deduction is permissible. This being so. the compensation payable to the claimants must be held to be that as worked out with a multiplier of sixteen and a dependency of Rs. 300 per month. This amount deserves, however, to be rounded off to a sum of one lakh rupees. In the case of the injured claimant, Murat Singh, the medical evidence consists of the statement of AW6 Dr. Joginder Singh Dang, the Orthopaedic Specialist at the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. A reading of his testimony would show that Murat Singh suffered fracture of both the bones of the right forearm and, besides that, his right little finger, ring finger as also the middle finger of his right hand had to be amputated. He remained admitted in the hospital for almost a fortnight in the first instance and was admitted again to the hospital in March. 1980, for an operation on account of the non -union of the bones of the forearm. His arm remained in plaster for about six weeks. The doctor further opined that later on examination he found that the movement of the right wrist was restricted and probation and supination was grossly restricted. The movement of the right index finger and the stump of the right middle finger was also impaired. As a result of the disability suffered by the claimant, he could not do any typing work nor could he lift any heavy weight.
(3.) THERE can be no manner of doubt that the claimant must undoubtedly have undergone considerable pain and suffering as a result of the injuries sustained by him Further, he must also have spent some amount on his treatment and medicines. Taking an overall view of the situation of the claimant, all that he has undergone and the disabilities that he is now left with, the amount awarded cannot but be held to be grossly inadequate. The compensation payable clearly deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/.;