Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hem Raj vs Subhash @ Mangat Ram & Others on 28 February, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.4752 of 2010 ( O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4752 of 2010 ( O & M)
Date of Decision: 28.2.2012
Hem Raj ...Appellant
Versus
Subhash @ Mangat Ram & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present:- Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Lovjinder Kaur, Advocate
for respondent-Insurance Company
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN J.(ORAL):
C.M. No. 20308 of 2010.
C.M is allowed. For the reasons mentioned in the application delay of 97 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal.
The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the impugned award dated 3.8.2009, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Yamunanagar, for enhancement of the compensation amount.
The brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.2006, the claimant-appellant along with his wife was going on his motorcycle bearing No. HR-02P-3106 following a three wheeler, suddenly the driver of the three wheeler turned towards the side of the appellant and without giving any signal struck against the FAO No.4752 of 2010 ( O & M) -2- motorcycle of the appellant. Resultantly, the appellant and his wife suffered multiple injuries including fractures.
The claimant-appellant preferred claim petition bearing No. 77 of 2006, which was decided by the Tribunal on 3.8.2009 by awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,33,000/- on account of the serious and multiple injuries suffered by appellant.
Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is unjust and inadequate. The appellant was working as a Clerk with an Advocate of this Court and had been earning Rs.8000/- per month. Whereas, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured at Rs. 4000/- per month. The appellant had also suffered fracture on left leg. The learned counsel refers to disability certificate Ex. P-10, showing permanent disability to the extent of 15%.
Learned counsel for the respondent contennds that an adequate and sufficient amount has already been granted by the learned Tribunal, and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the instant case, admittedly the appellant had been working as clerk with a lawyer of this Court, for the last more than six years. The appellant is a matriculate, therefore, it can be safely inferred that he must have earn Rs.6000/- per month. FAO No.4752 of 2010 ( O & M) -3- It is of common knowledge that the clerks attached with an Advocate also earns by rendering miscellaneous services to the litigants. Therefore, this Court feels that the income of the appellant should be taken at Rs.6000/- per month.
From the perusal of the record it is clear that appellant suffered fracture of his left leg and disability to the extent of 15% therefore, he must have undergone lot of pain and suffering due to the injuries suffered. Therefore, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met if another amount of Rs.10,000/- is allowed towasrds the head 'pain and suffering'; Rs.15,000 for loss of income and Rs.5000/- for transportation. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head Nutritious diet is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs. 12,000/- and the amount awarded under the head attendant charges is increased from Rs.2000/- to 12,000/-. Ordered accordingly.
The enhanced amount comes to Rs.50,000/- shall be payable to the claimant-appellant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment failing which they shall also be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization.
With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is partly allowed.
28.2.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE