Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar vs Sunil Kumar @ Babloo And Others on 8 February, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.2645 of 2011 ( O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2645 of 2011 ( O & M)
Date of Decision: 8.2.2012
Sunil Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar @ Babloo and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent-Insurance company..
JITENDRA CHAUHAN J.(ORAL):
The present appeal has been filed by the claimant- appellant against the impugned award dated 17.12.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ambala.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 9.1.2010, Sunil Kumar was going to Naraingarh Sahib, on his motorcycle No.HR-4-B-8486. He was on left side of the road and was at a moderate speed followed by his uncle Ram Kumar. At about 5.00 p.m, when Sunil Kumar reached near Dera of one Puran Chand (Chandigarh wale) in the area of Mauza Kherki Jattan, in the meantime a car bearing No. HP-14-7576 being driven by Sunil Kumar @ Babloo-respondent No.1 very rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle of Sunil Kumar.
Consequently, Sunil Kumar fell down on the road along with FAO No.2645 of 2011 ( O & M) -2- his motorcycle and suffered multiple simple and grievous injuries inlcuding fracture of right leg and right arm. The injured was removed to General Hospital, Naraingarh, from the spot of accident and from there he was shifted to K.D. Hospital Ambala Cantt.
Under these circumstances, the claimant preferred claim petition bearing MACT Case No.10 of 2010, which was decided by the learned Tribunal, on 17.12.2010 by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,14000/- to the claimant, on account of the injuries/disabilitty sustained by the claimant- appellant.
Feeling still dissatisfied, the claimant preferred this appeal for enhancement of the comepnsation.
Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the impugned award towards pain and sufferings, special diet, transportation charges is inadequate. He further contends that no amount has been granted for loss of future income in view of the disability that resulted in shortening of the right leg by one inch and united fractures of right radius and both the bones of right leg which has severely impaired the movement of claimant-appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company submits that already a lenient view has been taken and a sufficient amount has been awarded to the claimant- appellant.
FAO No.2645 of 2011 ( O & M) -3-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
The fact that the disabilitty of the claimant-appellant was assessed as 10% resulting in shortning of leg by one inche is not in dispute. The claimant-appellant remained indoor patient from 9.1.2010 to 18.1.2010. In view of the injuries suffered to the claimant-appellant, it can be safely inferred that the appellant could not have attended his business for at least six months. The claimant-appellant appeared as PW-5, deposed that he was advised post operating treatment; he visited K.D. Hospital, Ambala Cantt, for 18-20 times and he was operated twice. The claimant- appellant is unmarried and he was 25 years of age at the time of the accident. The claimant-appellant engaged in business of assembling and repairing of Invertors and is the only bread earner in the family. The disability not only restricted the movement of the appellant but also substantially reduced the working capacity of the appellant. It must have definitely resulted in loss of future income.
Keeping in view the disability suffered i.e. shortening of the leg of the claimant-appellant and pain and suffering on account of operations performed, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. In view the age and the nature of job performed by FAO No.2645 of 2011 ( O & M) -4- the claimant-appellant, he deserves further compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for loss of future income. The claimant-appellant visited the hospital for 18-20 times for his post operating treatment, the amount of compensation towards special diet, attendant, transportation etc. deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to 20,000/- It is ordered accordingly.
In view of the above discussions, the claimant- appellant is held entitled for an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- as enhanced compensation, which shall be payable to him within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, they shall also be entitled to the intereswt @ 7.5 p.a from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization.
Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.
8.2.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE