Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '627703',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
			'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
			'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '627703',
		(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajinder Kumar Vs Haryana State Through Collector and ors - Citation 627703 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '627703',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Sections 110A; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a>',
		'appealno' => 'First Appeal From Order No. 42 of 1985',
		'appellant' => 'Rajinder Kumar',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajinder Kumar Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983. 11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Jaswant Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G. and; S.N. Gaur, D.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-10-07',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.</p><p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.</p><p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.</p><p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.</p><p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.</p><p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.</p><p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.</p><p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.</p><p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-</p><p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).</p><p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.</p><p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.</p><p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.</p><p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.</p><p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.</p><p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.</p><p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.</p><p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.</p><p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.</p><p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.</p><p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.</p><p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.</p><p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.</p><p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1997)115PLR410',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Haryana State Through Collector and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '627703',
	(int) 1 => 'rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/627703/rajinder-kumar-vs-haryana-collector'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sarojnei Saksena, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The claimants have filed the aforementioned three appeals against the award dated November 5, 1984, whereby in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1984 claimant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 1000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 1300/- for medicine expenses and Rs. 200/- for loss of earning; in Claim petition No. 7 of 1984 claimant Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses; and in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1984 claimant Smt. Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for medicine expenses.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A brief resume of the case is that Veena Rani claimant is the wife of claimant Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Goma Devi is his father's sister. On October 8, 1983, they were coming in Rajinder Kumar's taxi bearing Regn. No. HRY-421 from Hisar town to his residence in urban Estate, Hisar. Rajinder Kumar was driving the taxi. Neena Rani and Goma Devi were sitting on the rear seats. When they reached near Pushpa Theatre, Hisar, Rajinder Kumar saw police van bearing No. HRF-3936 coming from Hansi side. Ram Kishan, driver of this Police van driving the same at a very excessive speed. The vehicle went out of his control. Rajinder Kumar slowed down his taxi and brought it on the kacha berm of the road on his left side. Ram Kishan brought his police van on his wrong side and rammed against the taxi of claimant Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar's taxi was badly damaged and all the three persons travelling in the taxi sustained injuries. They were taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where all the three claimants remained as indoor patients from October 8, 1985, to October 17, 1983. Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries, Goma Devi had two and Veena Rani sustained four injuries as detailed in the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1. Rajinder Kumar and Veena Rani were operated upon as well.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the three claimants filed aforementioned claim petitions. Rajinder Kumar in his claim petition averred that he spent Rs. 3910.20 paise on the purchase of medicines. He also averred that 16 stitches were put due to his head injury and he had spent Rs. 5000/- on taking special diet. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Goma Devi in her claim petition averred that she spent Rs. 1107/- on purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. Claimant Veena Rani in her claim petition pleaded that she spent Rs. 1015/- on the purchase of medicines. She also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Issues were framed. Parties' evidence was recorded.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that for this vehicular accident Ram Kishan respondent was responsible as he was driving the police van rashly and negligently. So far the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that these claimants are entitled to get general and special damages. In para 33 of its judgment, the learned Tribunal has written that Rajinder Kumar sustained simple injuries, he remained in the hospital for 10 days and thus it awarded Rs. 1000/- for the pain and suffering. The medicines were not proved by the claimant, but considering the nature of injuries and the period for which Rajinder Kumar was hospitalised, an amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded on account of treatment. Rajinder Kumar claimant stated on oath that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- by running his shop of goldsmith. Therefore, for 10 days absence from his shop an amount of Rs. 200/- was awarded. While deciding the claims of Veena Rani and Smt. Goma Devi also the learned Tribunal observed that they also have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Hence nominal amount of compensation, as stated above, was awarded to them.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that no doubt the claimants have not proved the receipts and vouchers obtained by them while purchasing medicines for their treatment, but while deciding such claim petitions it is not necessary for such claimants to prove these receipts and vouchers in the strict sense of the term. Even if they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, they can be considered for determining the amount spent by them on their treatment. All those receipts and vouchers were submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal. Rajinder Kumar submitted various such receipts. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. Similarly, Veena Rani 'and Goma Devi also submitted their receipts for the purchase of medicines during the course of their treatment. Total of the receipts submitted by Veena Rani is Rs. 1015/- and those submitted by Goma Devi is Rs. 1107/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered these receipts and has awarded nominal amount of Rs. 1300/- to Rajinder Kumar and has not awarded any amount to Veena Rani and Goma Devi for the expenses incurred by them on their treatment.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Appellants' learned counsel also argued that Rajinder Kumar sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was a head injury and was grievous. The learned Tribunal has held that it was a simple injury. Thus, it has fallen into that error and, therefore, it has awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for pain and suffering. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 stated on oath that on October 8, 1983, at about 9.15 P.M. all these three injured persons were admitted in his hospital, he was in shock, his blood pressure was 70, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish and he was not moving right upper limb and left side of upper and lower limbs. He had following injuries on his person :-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>1. Lacerated wound with evulsed scalp of size 9' x 5' extending between two parietal region, 3-1/2' from glabella of nose, profusely bleeding, bone was visible with a crack fracture on right side of the skull (parietal area).',
	(int) 10 => '<p>2. Multiple deep cuts varying from size 3' to 2 and 5-1/2' on lateral and inferior of right upper arm, bleeding freshly five to six in numbers with heamotoma around right shoulder joint.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>3. Multiple abrasion and scratches on right side of face with glass pieces in wound of right face, freshly bleeding.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. Abrasion on right neck 1 cm to 3 cm in size, two to three in numbers.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. Abrasions on left arm midway 1 cm each two in numbers.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>This witness also stated that Rajinder Kumar was operated upon by him on October 9, 1983, for craniotomy on the right side and the stitching of other wounds along with plaster of Paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Dr. Verma admitted in reply to Court question that he did brain operation of Rajinder Kumar. He produced bed head ticket of claimant Rajinder Kumar (Exhibit PA) wherein notes of operation are also recorded. He also informed the police about this accident.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>9. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statement of Dr. Verma PW-1 where in he has stated that when Goma Devi was brought to the hospital, her general condition was poor, blood pressure was 60, pulse was thready, respiration was sluggish with blood vomitting. She had lacerated wound on right upper nose, nasal bone was fractured, wounds was bleeding and she had abrasions and contusions on the right arm and right shoulder joint. When Veena Rani was admitted in his hospital her general condition was also poor. She had incised wound on right cheek, the muscles of the face was cut, maxilla and zygomatic junction was visible on retraction of the wound which was profusely bleeding. There were deep cuts on upper lip and lower lip and multiple abrasions on right neck lateral side. Veena was operated on October 9, 1983 for her injuries.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>10. Appellants' learned counsel also referred to the statements of these claimants. Veena Rani PW-5 has stated that she received injuries on the right side of her face and neck and she remained in the hospital for 10/11 days. She has testified that when she was being removed to the hospital, she became unconscious and regained it on October 11, 1983. Goma Devi PW-5 stated on oath that her nasal bone was fractured and she sustained injuries on right arm and right shoulder joint. She too has stated that she regained conciousness on third day of the accident. She was unable to say how much amount she spent on her medicines, as the medicines were purchased by her son and by her brother. Rajinder Kumar PW-6 has testified that he sustained injuries on his right shoulder, head, chest etc. He regained conciousness after two days of the accident in Jindal Hospital, Hisar. He was discharged from the hospital on October 17, 1983.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>11. Appellants' learned counsel submitted that considering these facts much more amount should have been awarded to these claimants as compensation under general as well as under special head.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>12. Respondents' learned counsel valiantly argued that the claimants have not proved the receipts for the purchase of medicines. Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar, but there is no document on record to prove that any brain surgery was done. If there was any fracture in his skull bone, the claimants should have filed X-ray report to show the fracture and to corroborate the statement of the doctor, but X-ray report was not produced. The other claimants have suffered minor injuries. Thus, according to him, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to all the claimants.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>13. The amount of compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, the status of the claimant, his age, his occupation, his future prospects, nature of injuries sustained by him, permanent disability, if any, suffered by him, period of hospitalisation, if any, and expenses of operation, if any, are to be considered. He is to be compensated separately for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and of diminished future prospects.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>14. The submissions made by the respondents' learned counsel do not merit acceptance. From the statement of Dr. R.K. Verma PW-1 it is apparent that he performed brain surgery for injury No. 1 of Rajinder Kumar. During cross-examination, bed head ticket of Rajinder Kumar was exhibited as PA. If this document is read minutely it discloses that it contains operation notes as well. The doctor himself has stated that he did craniotomy on the right side and stitching of other wounds along with plaster of paris splint was given to the right upper arm. Thus, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve this doctor on the point that he did brain surgery on Rajinder Kumar. Rajinder Kumar has produced receipts for the purchase of medicines. Their total is Rs. 3910/-. No doubt, these receipts are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act but in such claim petitions it is not necessary that the receipts should be proved in accordance with law. If the claimants are producing these receipts the Claims Tribunal can take into consideration. Claimant Rajinder Kumar has stated that he was earning Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/- per month from his business of goldsmith and he used to get income of Rs. 3000/- per month from his taxi. So far as his income from taxi is concerned, that is not to be considered in this claim. He got Rs. 12129/- from the Insurance Company as compensation for the damage caused to his taxi. He was admitted in the hospital for 10 days but that will not reduce his income from taxi. Thus, admittedly he did not attend to his business of goldsmith for 10 days and if his monthly income is taken to be Rs. 700/-, the loss of the earning from this shop roughly comes to Rs. 233/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 200/- on account of loss of earning, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. But the learned Tribunal fell into an error in not awarding Rs. 3910/- as expenses incurred by Rajinder Kumar claimant in purchasing medicines. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1000/- for his pain and suffering. Rajinder Kumar claimant was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. He underwent brain surgery and purchased medicines worth about Rs. 4,000/-. These are the yardsticks to arrive at a conclusion as to how much amount of compensation should be awarded to him fro pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to this claimant under the head of general damages. When a person is admitted in the hospital, there are many more expenses which cannot be accounted for. Attendants do come to see him. They spend amount on their transportation. Special diet is to be provided to the patient. All these expenses are covered under general damages. Thus, in my considered view, claimant Rajinder Kumar is entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as general damages Rs. 3910/- as expenses of medicines, Rs. 2000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 200/- as loss of earning. Thus, he is entitled to get Rs. 9,110/- as damages from the respondents.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. So far as the appeal of claimant Veena Rani is concerned, she sustained injuries as enumerated above. She was also operated upon and was admitted in the hospital for 10 days. She has produced receipts of Rs. 1015/- regarding purchase of medicines for her treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded her only Rs. 600/-(Rs. 350/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment), though she filed receipts of purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1015. In my considered view, Veena Rani is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1015/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 1500/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2415/- rounded as Rs. 2420/-.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. Claimant-appellant Goma Devi has also produced receipt for the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 1107/-. She too was hospitalised for 10 days. She sustained two injuries. Her nasal bone was fractured. Her wounds were stitched and plaster was applied on her nose. The learned Tribunal has awarded her Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 250/- for her treatment. In my considered view, she is entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as general damages, Rs. 1107/- as cost of medicines and Rs. 600/- for pain and suffering. Thus, she is entitled to get Rs. 2207/- as compensation, rounded off to Rs. 2210/-.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. Accordingly, all the three appeals are allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 500/- each. Claimant-appellant Rajinder Kumar is awarded Rs. 9110/-, Veena Rani is awarded Rs. 2420/- and Goma Devi is awarded Rs. 2210/- as compensation which they are entitled to recover from the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109