Bhawani Singh, J.
1. This appeal by the claimant, Gurcharan Singh, assails the award in M.A.C. Petition No. 8 of 1988, decided on 3-6-1989, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, thereby dismissing the claim preferred by the claimant, claiming compensation from the respondents to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by him.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 6-9-1987, the claimant, a pillion rider with his friend Amar Singh, was going on scooter No. Pun-792 at about 11-30 p.m. after seeing the circus show near the Bus-stand, Una. As soon as they reached near the chowk of new bus stand, Car No. HIU-1000, driven by respondent No. 3, and owned by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, came from behind and hit the scooter with the result that the scooterists fell down along with the scooter and sustained injuries. In the case of Amar Singh, the injuries were quite simple and he did not advance any claim for compensation whereas the claimant in the present case sustained injury to the left ankle which got fractured. Two persons, eye witnesses, namely, Chhotu alias Santosh and Hari, carried the claimant and his friend to the district hospital and were admitted there. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital up to 30-9-1987 and thereafter he visited the hospital again on 27-10-1987 since the injury had not healed by that time. The hospital authorities there referred the claimant to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh (PGI). The injury resulted in permanent disability and affected the earning capacity of the petitioner to the extent of 10%. The petitioner further states that he had started the job of welding after getting a loan from a nationalised bank under the unemployed scheme but due to the injury, he could not follow the said vocation. His age, at the time of the accident, was about 25 years and his monthly income has been stated to be Rs. 2,000/-.
3. The respondents have repudiated the claim and they have alleged that car No. HIU-1000 was not involved in the accident. It is stated that the scooter driver, after overtaking the car, failed to keep the balance of the same and the result was that it dashed into an electric pole embedded on the side of the road.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
'1. Whether the petitioner had been knocked down by Car No. HIU 1000 on 6-9-1987 at 11-30 p.m. near bus stand, Una, as alleged?
OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the knocking down of the petitioner was due to some rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the said car i.e. respondent No. 3?
OPP
3. If both the above issues are proved whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, the quantum thereof?
OPP
4. Relief.'
5. The trial ended in the dismissal of the claim petition since the Tribunal held that the claimant was not knocked down by car No. HIU-1000. Having come to this finding on issue No. 1, decision on other issues became redundant, the Tribunal held.
6. The claimant has a agrievance against the findings of the Tribunal on this issue and the award has, thus, been challenged by way of this appeal.
7. Shri Prikshit Mehdudia, appearing vice Shri K. D. Sood, submits that the findings of the Tribunal deserve to be set aside since there is sufficient evidence not only to connect the offending vehicle with the accident but also to indicate that the act of respondent No. 3 was rash and negligent, thus, entailing responsibility for the award of compensation. Reference to the evidence on record has also been made.
8. Statement of the claimant (P.W. 1) is that he was returning home from the bus stand after watching the circus show and when they reached near the chowk, they found a car following them. It hit them and it was being driven by respondent No. 3. The number of the car was HIU-1000. As a result of the accident, they fell on the spot and were taken to the hospital by one Hari and Chhbtu in a three wheeler. As a result of the accident, his left leg above the ankle joint was fractured and both the bones of the leg at the said point were fractured. He remained admitted in the hospital up to 25-9-1987 and visited the hospital again in October, 1987 when he was referred to PGI where he was treated as an out-door patient. His leg was plastered there and he was feeling pain in his leg even now (the date of statement before the Tribunal) since the fractures had not healed fully. He had already spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 17,000/- on his treatment. At the time of accident, he was 25 years of age and is a Matriculate. After learning the skill of welding at Chandigarh for about 3-4 years, he took a loan from a nationalised bank under the self employment scheme and started the work of manufacturing iron gates, grills, water tanks etc. in a shop near the court building which he had taken on rent for Rs. 300/- per month. His earnings were Rs. 2000/- per month but because of the accident, he could not do the work of welding and so the shop remained closed. He cannot even pedal a cycle because of the damage to the bones of the left leg, which has shortened by about one inch. His marriage prospects have diminished. While in the hospital, he wrote a letter to the High Court, to the Sessions Judge and the Superintendent of Police since his report was not being recorded by the police officials and he was threatened to sign a blank paper. Copy of the complaint is Ex. PA. In cross-examination, he denies that the car HIU-1000 was ahead of their scooter and the accident was after the overtaking of the car and against an electric pole just abutting the road. He also denies that after overtaking the car, Amar Singh could not control the scooter because of the dazzling light of the car. He also denies that after hitting into the pole, he became unconscious and he did not write in any complaint that he regained consciousness after 5/6 days. The police reached the hospital soon after the accident. He also denies that on inquiry by the police he stated that the car was not involved in the accident. He also denies that they were not taken to the hospital in a three wheeler but were taken by the driver of the car. He also denies that the complaints made to the High Court, Sessions Judge and the Superintendent of Police were cooked up. He also denies that he spent only that amount on the treatment which has been mentioned in vouchers Ex. PC to Ex. PU and that he was not earning as much as has been deposed. He states that the police had asked him to sign blank papers.
9. Shri Amar Singh (P.W. 2) has also supported the claimant. He has also denied that he made any statement to the police stating that the car was not involved in the accident and the same happened because he lost control over the scooter. He has denied having given this statement (Ex. DA).
10. Santosh Kumar alias Chhotu Ram (P.W.3) has also supported the case of the claimant and particularly the fact that he and one Hari took the injured to the hospital in a three wheeler. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he was neither on the spot nor did he carry them to the hospital and they were taken by respondent No. 3 in his car. He states that the payment for the charges for hiring the scooter was made by him.
11. Gurcharan Singh (P.W. 4) is the Medical Officer. He states that the claimant was examined in the hospital on 6-9-1987 at about 11-45 p.m. and found four injuries on his person and mentioned them in the medico-legal certificate (Ex.PV).
12. Dr. S. K. Nanda (P.W. 5) Medical Officer, District Hospital, Una, also examined the claimant with a view to assessing the extent of his permanent disability. According to him, the claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10 per cent. He issued certificate (Ex. PW). In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the injury had not resulted in any permanent disability and the impact of the same for the present would disappear with the passage of time.
13. On the other hand, Shri Sant Ram (respondent No. 3} has appeared and gave his statement. His case is that at that time he was going from the Workshop to the Police Station and noticed that many persons had stopped at the chowk. He stopped the car and inquired from the bystanders as to what had happened. He was told that a scooterist had dashed against an electric pole and had suffered serious injuries. Two of the bystanders lifted the injured person and put him into his car for being taken to the hospital and he carried the injured to- the hospital. Two persons, who had brought the injured into the car, also accompanied him to the hospital. He did not know their names but knew them by face. One, out of them, was a halwai at the bus stop and the other used to sell eggs at the bus stand on a rehri. In cross-examination, he states that the mechanic of the workshop was also in his car since the mechanic wanted him to take trial and it was for that reason that instead of going straight to the police station from the workshop, he was coming towards the courts to check if the defect in the car had been satisfactorily checked.
14. Smt. Bimla Kapila (R.W. 2) is the Headmistress in the Government Primary School for Boys, Una. She has been summoned to prove that Amar Singh was once a student in her school and it was he who had given the statement (Ex.DA).
15. Shri Kishan Chand (RW 4) is running a halwai shop near the bus-stand, Una. In defence of respondent No. 3, he states that the driver of the car took out his arm and waived the same signalling that he intended to turn towards Hamirpur side and the scooter then hit into the pole embedded on one side of the road. It was being driven very fast and the people present there shouted to the driver of the car to stop so that the injured could be taken to the hospital. The driver of the car stopped the vehicle and the two injured persons were taken to the hospital. In cross-examination, he admits that respondent No. 3 was known to him since he used to take tea in his shop. This is the nature of evidence that has been adduced by the parties to prove their respective cases.
16. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A. K. Goel, appearing for respondent No. 3, have laid much stress 'on the fact that the claimant has stated that after the accident he was not rendered unconscious, although this fact has been denied by Shri Amar Singh and Santosh Kumar who have stated that the claimant had become unconscious after the accident. In this view of the matter, the version of the claimant cannot be believed and so it should be held that the injured were taken to the hospital by respondent No, 3. I am not impressed by this submission. It appears that due to acute pain, the claimant may not be in a fit state of health by which these witnesses may have thought that the claimant had become unconscious. This conclusion is supported by Ex. PV which does not disclose that the claimant was unconscious when he was brought to the hospital. Further, Gurcharan Singh (P. W. 4), Medical Officer, who examined the claimant on arrival in the hospital on 6-9-1987 at 11-45 p.m.has also not stated so nor any suggestion to this effect had been made to him by the respondents. Moreover, there does not appear to be any reason to doubt the statements of the claimant and his witnesses that he was taken to the hospital by Santosh Kumar (P.W. 3) and Hari and the police and respondent No. 3 appear to have reached the hospital thereafter to give a twist to the case to save respondent No. 3, the driver of the Superintendent of Police, Una.
17. Shri A. K. Goel has strenuously argued that the car HIU-1000, driven by Shri Sant Ram, Driver of Superintendent of Police, Una, was not involved in the accident and the claimant and his witnesses have unnecessarily involved the same in this accident. There is no substance in this contention of Shri A. K. Goel. There is cogent and convincing evidence to show that the car in question was involved in the accident and it was driven by respondent No. 3 at that time. The respondents have not even produced the mechanic who, according to the statement of respondent No. 3, was in the car and it was on test check at that time which again points out that the car may not be in a roadworthy and fit condition.
18. The second aspect of the argument that the police car has been involved without any basis, needs a little more discussion and observations. As already said, it was a car of Superintendent of Police, Una. Obviously, the police department at that place was keen to screen not only its involvement but also the involvement of respondent No. 3. It became a fight between a poor claimant, subsisting barely on bank loan for the purpose of earning his livelihood in an undertaking involving great physical and mental strain, against a mighty police department at that place. When failed to get justice at their hands, insisting for the registration of a case for punishing respondent No. 3 for having committed the offence under the various provisions of penal law, was driven to send representations to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, Sessions Judge, Una and the Superintendent of Police. It was only then that the police started moving their limbs and recorded favourable statements excluding the involvement of the car and respondent No. 3 in this accident. A glaring example is noticed when it stated that Amar Singh (PW2) had given the statement (Ex. DA) denying the involvement of the car and taking the responsibility for the accident in question which effort proved quite unsuccessful when it came out that this was some other Amar Singh.
19. Perusal of the statement of Shri Kishan Chand (R.W. 3) and Annexures like Ex. DA, Ex. DB, Ex, DC and Ex. DD, show that the police made all efforts to procure statements of witnesses to show that neither the car nor respondent No. 3 was involved in this accident. It went to the extent of even recording such a statement from the father of the claimant who had neither seen the accident nor could he say anything on this account. The pressure of the police on the claimant not to initiate any case and compromise the matter was resorted to and when the claimant failed to seek justice, he had no option left with him except to write Ex. PA to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on 10-9-1987 wherein not only the details of the accident have been described but also the pressure that was being exercised on the claimant to compromise the matter was also stated. This fact finds mention in the claim petition as well. In these circumstances, it is rather impossible to appreciate the statement of Shri A. K. Goel that the case has been wrongly fastened against the respondents. Something could be said had the issue been with someone other than the police. Therefore, less said the better, otherwise the way this case has been handled by the police, needed more critical observations.
20. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that it was respondent No. 3 and the car HIU-1000 driven by him that was involved in this accident. The scooter in question was hit by this car from behind and as a result of this, they fell down and sustained injuries. The rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No. 3 is quite obvious and leaves little doubt in this regard. He is, therefore, liable for the rash and negligent manner in which he drove the car and caused the accident. The car being owned by other respondents, therefore, all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation being assessed hereinafter.
21. The claimant was about 25 years of age at the time of the accident and is a Matriculate. It is in evidence that the claimant was earning Rs. 2000/- per month and out of it he was paying Rs. 300/- as rent and Rs. 500/- towards personal expenses, thus, leaving Rs. 1500/- net earnings. Thus calculated (1500 x 12 x 18), the amount comes to Rs. 3,24,000/- and the permanent disability in this case has been stated to be to the extent of 10 per cent. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
1. Compensation for per-sonal injury :
Rs. 32.400/-
2. Medical expenses :
Rs. 646-65 paise
3. Compensation for pain and suffering :
Rs. 5,000/-
4. Transportation charges :
Rs. 1,000/-
5. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment :
Rs. 2,000/-
Total:
Rs. 41, 046.65 paise
22. In view of the sufficient evidence on record, the argument of Shri A. K. Goel that this case may be remanded to the Tribunal for the assessment of compensation is not tenable and is rejected.
23. Consequently, this appeal is allowed, the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is set-aside. The claimant is awarded compensation of Rs. 41,046.65 paise with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1-3-1988, the date of the claim petition, till the payment of the same to the claimant. The respondents to pay counsel fee quantified at Rs 1,000/- to the claimant.