Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs Gobind And Another on 16 March, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No. 55 of 2010 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
FAO No. 55 of 2010
Date of decision : March 16, 2012
*****
Suresh Kumar
............Appellant
Versus
Gobind and another
...........Respondent
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
*****
Present: Mr. Manoj K. Tanwar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.S Dhull, Advocate for respondent.
*****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J (ORAL)
The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 20.2.2009, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short `the Tribunal') for enhancement of the compensation amount on account of injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident which took place on 15.4.2008.
The brief facts giving rise to the case are that on 15.4.2008, the appellant left for Village Nayan from Village Dholi in the company of Subhash son of Shish Pal and Mahender son of Shish Pal in a jeep bearing Regd. No. RJ-25/0475 to attend the marriage of one Parveen. However, one of the tyre of the jeep got punctured on reaching near Dev Filling Station in the area of Village FAO No. 55 of 2010 :2: Hudina. The appellant went to the Filling station for drinking water, while crossing the road to the way back, to the jeep, a Tata 407 four wheeler, having Regd. No. HR-57-2697, being driven by respondent no.1, Govind in a rash and negligent manner hit him resulting in multiple injuries on the head and foot. He was taken to the hospital. He is still under treatment and has become disabled permanently. With regard to the accident, FIR No.93 dated 16.4.2008 was registered in police station Sadar Narnaul..
The claimant-appellant filed a claim petition, which was accepted by learned Tribunal. A sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation on 20.2.2009 was awarded. Feeling dissatisfied thereof, the claimant-appellant has filed the present appeal.
Learned counsel contends that the amount paid as compensation towards the head of loss of enjoyment of life and loss of income is inadequate. From the statement of PW-3, Dr. Dinesh Podar, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Narnaul it is clear that the appellant suffered injury of the left knee joint with keloid formation. On account of the injury, the appellant could not attend to his job for a long period and is still taking treatment.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Keeping in view the nature and receipt of the injury, and FAO No. 55 of 2010 :3: the vocation of the appellant and the averment that he is still under treatment, it can safely be assumed that he must have been confined to bed and unable to attend to his work for at least three to four months. Therefore, this Court feels that the amount paid as compensation towards disability and for loss of enjoyment of life and loss of income is inadequate. Keeping in view the age of the appellant and the location of the injury, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if another amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards the head of loss of enjoyment of life and loss of income. Ordered accordingly.
The enhanced amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. In case the enhanced amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @ 7½ % from the date of filing the appeal till its realisation.
In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above.
March 16, 2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ritu JUDGE