Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chander vs Gurnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2011
F.A.O. No. 4213 of 2010(O&M) 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 4213 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision: September 26th,2011
Subhash Chander .... Appellant
Versus
Gurnam Singh and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate,
for respondent No.3
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
This is an appeal of the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 12.11.2009. The petition of the claimant filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") has been allowed and compensation in a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh has been allowed. The facts in brief are that on 25.1.2008, the claimant left his factory and started for his village on motor cycle bearing registration No. F.A.O. No. 4213 of 2010(O&M) 2 ..
HR-04B-5142, which was driven by Jasbir Singh. According to him, when they were near Saini Dharam Kanta, Nairangarh Road, Kala Amb, a tractor trolley bearing registration No. HR-04A-8128 came from the side of Naraingarh. The tractor trolley is claimed to have been driven by respondent No.1 at a very high speed and in a negligent manner. The said tractor trolley was turned to the wrong side without giving any signal and hit the motor cycle on the road resulting in injuries to the claimant. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh where he was given first aid and was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh. He was operated upon twice at PGI, Chandigarh on 26.1.2008 and 2.3.2008 and remained admitted there for 30 days. He has claimed having spent more than Rs.4.00 lacs on his treatment. He has also claimed that he was earning Rs.6000/- per month and received permanent disability in the accident at the age of 23 years. He has claimed Rs.10.00 lakhs as compensation.
The claim petition had been opposed by the respondents. While respondents No.1 and 2 have denied the accident to have taken place in the manner alleged by the claimant and that the claimant has suffered any injury or that he is entitled to any compensation, respondent No. 3 - Insurance company has denied the driver of the tractor trolley to be possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is claimed that there was collusion between the claimant and respondents No.1 and 2. The details of treatment and expenses are also denied.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were F.A.O. No. 4213 of 2010(O&M) 3 ..
framed by the Tribunal.
1. Whether the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing registrar No. HR-04A-8128 by respondent No.1?
2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant entitled to and from whom?OPP
3. Whether the respondent No.1 had a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?OPR
4. Relief.
Taking the evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh in favour of claimant vide the impugned award.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
I have heard Shri Arvinder Arora, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Vivek Singal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and have gone through the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that compensation in a sum of Rs.26,000/- for disability of 13% suffered at a young age is highly inadequate. According to him, the pain and suffering of the appellant has also not been duly compensated by F.A.O. No. 4213 of 2010(O&M) 4 ..
the amount awarded in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and for rich diet, a sum of Rs.5,000/- alone had been allowed.
The appellant had admittedly undergone two operations of his leg. The disability of 13% of the leg would amount to functional disability. The pain and suffering of such a victim cannot be compensated by allowing a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Similarly, a sum of Rs.5,000/- could not adequately compensate the appellant for rich diet required by him to be taken on account of this accident.
Keeping in view the points raised before me, I find enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs.30,000/- to be justified in the facts and circumstances of this case. The appeal is consequently, allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1.00 lakh to Rs. 1.30 lakhs with the other terms regarding rate of interest etc. remaining the same.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 26th , 2011 som