Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Nirmal Singh v. Baldev Raj & Anr - FAO-533-1987 [2006] RD-P&H 3877 (7 July 2006)


F.A.O. No. 533 of 1987

Date of Decision: July 12,2006

Nirmal Singh .................................. Appellant Versus

Baldev Raj and another .................................... Respondents CORAM
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta

Present: Mr. Brij Mohan Lal, Advocate

for the appellant.

None for the respondents.


The appellant-Nirmal Singh has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, dated 23.2.1987 by which a compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded to the claimant.

Briefly the facts of the case are that on 3.6.1986 at about 11 A.M. the claimant-appellant was returning back to his house on his bicycle when the tyre of his cycle got deflated near Phase-II S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The appellant got down from his cycle and got the tyre inflated from a cycle repair shop and when he tried to ride his cycle, at that time, a tempo bearing registration No. PBW-1073 came from behind, being driven by Baldev Raj, and dashed against the appellant. The appellant was dragged along with his cycle to a distance of 7-8 paces and he suffered multiple injuries on account of the accident. He was rushed to PGI where he was treated. The owner of the offending vehicle was the Punjab State Electricity Board-respondent No.2.

The appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs on account of the injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tempo No. PBW-1073 and held the respondents to be jointly and severely liable. No appeal has been filed by the F.A.O. No. 533 of 1987 [ 2 ]

respondents, hence, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place are upheld.

Counsel for the appellant has contended that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate as the appellant was working in the office of Punjab Architect, Chandigarh, and was drawing a salary of Rs.3177/- per month. It is contended that as a result of the accident the third, forth and fifth ribs of the appellant were fractured.

There was also a fracture of right neck of scapoula bone and also a fracture of the pelvis. He has shortening of 1.5 cm on right lower limb and has suffered a disability of 10% which is of permanent nature.

Dr. Harmit Singh-PW4 who was a Senior Resident in the Department of Orthopedics at PGI, Chandigarh, has deposed that Nirmal Singh was brought to the Emergency of PGI on 3.6.1986 at 2.30 PM and on examination, the following injuries were found on his person:-

1. Multiple abrasions over the right arm, both hands and face.

2. Fracture of third, forth and fifth ribs with haemothorax and surgical emphyseme.

3. Fracture of right neck of scapoula bone.

4. Fracture of pelvis. The Doctor has further opined that the patient was in severe shock and was treated for his fractures. The patient was discharged on 9.6.1986.

The Doctor has categorically stated that the appellant cannot sit cross legged and walk long distance. He also has restriction of shoulder movements and shortening of 1.5 cm on right lower limb and the 10% disability suffered by him is of permanent nature.

A perusal of the aforementioned statement clearly shows that the appellant had suffered multiple injuries and, therefore, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate. Not only the appellant was hospitalized in PGI for approximately one week, but he had suffered fracture of his ribs, fracture of right neck of scapoula bone, fracture of pelvis as well as shortening of right lower lim. He has been permanently disabled to the extent of 10%.

Apart from the above, the appellant has stated that he had remained bed-ridden for approximately 4-1/2 months and had incurred a lot of expenses on his treatment and medicines. The appellant has also F.A.O. No. 533 of 1987 [ 3 ]

considerably suffered on account of pain as a result of the injuries.

After taking into consideration the multiple injuries suffered by the appellant as well as the pain and suffering and the amount spent by him on his treatment, I award a sum of Rs. one lac to the appellant. The amount shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severely along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

12.7.2006 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.