Hanuman Parshad v. Ved Parkash & Ors.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. To support this contention, he has relied upon authorities reported as The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma and another 2003 (3) PLR 774, Darshan vs. Devinder Singh and another 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 749 (P&H) (DB), Jagir Kaur and another vs. Zora Singh and others 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 354 and Sadiq vs. Jangsher Singh 1997 (3) PLR 799. Learned counsel for the Insurance company has disputed the said argument. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel FAO No. 1213 of 1991 -4- for both the sides. In Darshan's case (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that amendment made on 14.11.1994 deleting the period of limitation will have retrospective effect except in respect of the claim petition which has been dismissed as time barred and the order has attained finality. The matter is still sub judice in the present case. In Jagir Kaur's case (Supra) and Sadiq's case (Supra), also the same principal was laid down. In The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has moved one step further by holding that if the claim petition has not been filed upto 14.11.1994, in respect of accident occurred earlier, by deleting the clause of limitation, the claimant can file the claim petition even after 14.11.1994. So, in view of above discussion, the finding of Tribunal on issue No. 3 does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny and consequently, the said finding stands reversed. Learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the award on the ground that amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that claimant suffered 10% permanent disability and as such he is rendered permanently disabled and there is shortening of leg also. The amount of Rs.48,000/- granted, is on lower side. Learned counsel for the Insurance company has supported the judgment of the Tribunal in this regard. I have considered the submissions made by both counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. FAO No. 1213 of 1991 -5- Learned Tribunal has granted the amount to the claimant as under:-

1. Pain and sufferings

2. Medical treatment

3. Amount on account of permanent disability to the extent of 10%

4. Conveyance - - - -

5. Injuries suffered by the claimant - on his face and other parts of body. Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 7,000/- Rs.30,000 Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 2,000/- Total ________________ - ________________ Rs.48,000/- The claimant has examined PW-2 Dr. Mahavir Goel, who has stated that claimant came to his hospital on 11.11.1988 at 3.30 p.m. Traction was applied on 12.11.1988 and he was operated upon on 29.11.1988. Plaster was applied on 31.12.1988 and the patient was discharged on 4.1.1989. He was treated as out door patient from

4.1.1989 to 5.4.1989. At that time he had malunited fracture of the left femur bone with spiky projection and an operation was conducted on 11.4.1989. A nail in the femur was applied. Post operatively, patient had no complication and he was discharged on 1.5.1989. Claimant also examined PW-3, Dr.Ashok Sarwal, who has stated that claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% and nailing was done with shortening of 1 inch and there was slight limitation of movement of hip joint and knee joint. Previous disability of the claimant was 20% and now after a lapse of 2 years, the disability has been reduced to 10% with the passage of time. He has FAO No. 1213 of 1991 -6- further stated that permanent disability cannot be cured with the passage of time. In this case, the claimant has been allowed only Rs.4,000/- in respect of pain and suffering. In my view, that amount is on lower side. So, the amount on account of pain and suffering stands enhanced to Rs.15,000/- in view of nature of injuries. From the perusal of the evidence on the file, it is revealed that nailing was done and that has to be removed in future. So, no amount in respect of future expenses has been awarded to the claimant. So, another sum of Rs.10,000/- stands allowed on account of future expenses. So, in this manner, the claimant is held entitled to claim Rs.69,000/-. The said amount shall be paid to the claimant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till payment. Liability to pay the said amount shall be the same as ordered by the Tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of.

29.4.2010 ( K.C. Puri ) Judge