Subhash Vs. Ishwar Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party..........srivastava of safdarjang hospital, delhi, that the appellant came to the hospital with head and facial injuries for which he was admitted in the hospital on 4.6.1993 and discharged on 8.6.1993. he further stated that the appellant was again admitted on 9.6.1993 and discharged on 25.6.1993. he went on stating that both the cheek bones had fractured as also the upper jaw and nasal bone were fractured for which the appellant was operated upon for setting these bones. internal wiring was also done and that the claimant was likely to have a slight problem in chewing.5. in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, we are of the considered view that a sum of rs. 40,000/- would be just and reasonable under the heading of pain and suffering of the appellant. in all the appellant would be entitled to a sum of rs. 60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till final payment. no costs. the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Judgment:

ORDER

N.C. Jain and V.K. Bali, JJ.

1. Admitted.

2. Since the records of the appeal need not be summoned for regular hearing, the case has been taken on board for final hearing.

3. In this appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation for the injuries he has suffered, an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- only has been granted by the Tribunal out of which a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is on account of pain and suffering sustained by him whereas other amount of Rs. 20,000/- is towards treatment expenditure.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in view of the nature of injuries which the appellant suffered on account of the accident, the grant of Rs. 20,000/- is on the lower side. It has been stated by Dr. Dhirender Srivastava of Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, that the appellant came to the hospital with head and facial injuries for which he was admitted in the hospital on 4.6.1993 and discharged on 8.6.1993. He further stated that the appellant was again admitted on 9.6.1993 and discharged on 25.6.1993. He went on stating that both the cheek bones had fractured as also the upper jaw and nasal bone were fractured for which the appellant was operated upon for setting these bones. Internal wiring was also done and that the claimant was likely to have a slight problem in chewing.

5. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, we are of the considered view that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- would be just and reasonable under the heading of pain and suffering of the appellant. In all the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till final payment. No costs. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.