Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharamvir Alias Dharam Singh vs Satish Kumar And Others on 13 September, 2013
F.A.O. No. 6014 of 2010 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 6014 of 2010 [O&M]
Date of Decision: September 13th, 2013
Dharamvir alias Dharam Singh .... Appellant
Versus
Satish Kumar and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Ajit Sehag, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate,
for respondent No.5-Insurance Company.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
This is an appeal brought by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to him for his injuries by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 16.12.2009.
Dharamvir alias Dharam Singh, the complainant suffered injuries in a roadside accident that took place on 20.6.2005. He was taken to General Hospital, Hansi where he was medico legally examined. He was taken to Metro Hospital, Hisar where he remained under treatment and was operated upon. Thereafter he received treatment from various hospitals as out door patient.
The respondents have controverted the averments of the claim Prakash Som 2013.09.20 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 6014 of 2010 2 ..
petition. They have denied the averments of the claimant regarding his suffering injuries and his taking treatment and spending some amount in his treatment. He is denied to deserve any amount as compensation.
Learned Tribunal took into account the disability certificate, Ex.P74, medical bills Ex. P75 to P89 and other documents. Learned Tribunal found a sum of ` 77,088/- to have been spent by the claimant in his treatment and on that account, learned Tribunal rounded off the figure to `77,100/- as compensation. A sum of ` 10,000/- was awarded for conveyance charges. The claimant was awarded a sum of ` 25,000/- for pain and suffering, special diet and hospitalization. A sum of ` 60,000/- was allowed as compensation for disability and a sum of ` 10,000/- was allowed as compensation for loss of income.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards loss of income. According to him, the amount of `60,000/- on account of disability is also on lower side. According to him, the disability has been 28% and the amounts awarded under other heads are also on lower side.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted, on the other hand, that the disability certificate was not proved on the record. According to him, photostat copy of the disability certificate was tendered in evidence and not even a doctor was examined to prove it. According to him, the only disability is of shortening of left leg by 1 centimeter. According to him, no amount was required to be assessed as compensation for the disability which was not proved on the record.
Ex.P74 is the document which was tendered in evidence. As per record, it has been a photocopy of the document and none was Prakash Som 2013.09.20 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 6014 of 2010 3 ..
examined to prove it. However, no objection was taken by the other counsel at the time of its tendering in evidence. In this situation, it can be said that the document was taken by the Tribunal without any objection from the other side.
The disability is 28% is for shortening of left leg by 1 centimeter. The disability appears to have been assessed at a higher side. Doctor was not examined, who could be cross-examined by the other side on appropriateness of the disability assessed by him and the other members of the Board. Therefore, it cannot be said that the disability was of 28% and if so, it was functional disability. The amount of ` 60,000/- for disability is compensation for loss of future income and for this type of disability, a sum of ` 60,000/- as compensation appears to be just and proper. In addition thereto, a sum of ` 10,000/- is assessed as loss of income but the same appears to be loss of income during treatment. The award does not admit of interference on compensation assessed under any other head.
In these circumstances, I find that just and proper compensation has already been assessed by learned Tribunal. The award does not call for any interference in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 13th, 2013 som Prakash Som 2013.09.20 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document