Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab ... on 2 December, 2008
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
F.A.O. No. 214 of 1988
Date of Decision: 2.12.2008
Baljit Singh.
....... Appellant through Shri
Jagdish Manchanda,
Advocate.
Versus
Secretary to Government of Punjab Transport Depot,
Chandigarh and others.
....... Respondent nos. through
Shri N.S.Virk,
Addl. Advocate General,
Punjab.
Respondent no.3 through
Nemo.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
This is an appeal directed by the claimant-injured against award dated 4.11.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 62 of 9.10.1986.
In a motor vehicular accident which took place on 3.9.1986, the appellant had sustained injuries. He was medico-legally examined by PW2- Dr.Arjan Singh Gill at General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, who issued a report, the copy of which is Exhibit-P1. He was further treated for fracture of right side rib by PW5-Dr.Rajinder Sharma, who stated that the F.A.O.No.214 of 1988 -2- ....
appellant remained admitted from 3.9.1986 to 10.9.1986 for treatment.
The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, awarded a total sum of Rs.17000/- as compensation to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. He did not feel satisfied with the amount of compensation and hence, this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that out of the aforementioned amount, Rs.5000/- were awarded as damages to the car of the appellant and if this amount is excluded, then the compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is inadequate considering the fact that his rib and left scapula were fractured and he remained hospitalized for almost 10 to 12 days.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned award deserves to be modified.
Concededly, the appellant had suffered fracture of rib and scapula and remained admitted in the hospital for treatment from 3.9.1986 to 10.9.1986, as has been established from the testimony of PW2 and PW5. The Tribunal has allowed a sum of Rs.3500/- on account of medical treatment, Rs.3500/- for the fracture of rib and Rs.5000/- for pain and suffering.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries as well as the period of hospitalization, I award a sum of Rs.5000/- as medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- for pain & suffering and Rs.5000/- for special diet. In this manner, the total compensation works out F.A.O.No.214 of 1988 -3- ....
to Rs.28500/- [ Rs.5000 for medical expenses + Rs.5000/- for special diet + Rs.10000/- for pain & suffering + ( Rs. 5000/- for car damages + Rs.3500/- for rib fracture, as already awarded by the Tribunal)].
The enhanced compensation shall be payable to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation.
The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal.
The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms.
December 02,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge