F.A.O. No. 4816 of 2008 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4816 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 30th,2011 Kamla Sharma .... Appellant Versus Madan Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Surinder Singh Walia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. M.B.Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, awarded in a sum of ` 46,480/- by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 30.7.2008. The case of the claimant - Kamla Sharma is as under :- On 6.4.2007, Kamla Sharma along with others was going from Karnal to Ambala in a Maruti Zen car bearing registration No. HR-05H-9300. It was driven by Gagandeep Sharma. At about 12.15 PM, the car was opposite Parakeet F.A.O. No. 4816 of 2008 2 .. Restaurant, Pipli on the National Highway. In the meanwhile, a bus bearing registration No. HR-46-B-4905 came from the side of Parakeet Restaurant at a very high speed. It was also driven in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the car. All the occupants of the car suffered injuries. A case was got registered at Police Station Sadar, Kurukshetra for this accident by way of FIR No. 132 dated 6.4.2007 under sections 279 and 337 IPC against Madan Singh – respondent No.1, driver of the bus. Kamla Sharma claimed to have suffered fracture of her right upper arm and injuries on the eye. She claimed to have taken treatment from Anand Hospital, Kurukshetra and City Hospital, Kunjpura Road, Karnal. She also took treatment from Dr. Balbir Singh Virk of Virk Hospital, Karnal and is still under treatment. She has claimed that more than ` 45,000/- had been spent on her treatment. She was a retired teacher from Education Department and was giving tuitions and was earning ` 6,000/- per month. A sum of ` 2,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation. The claim petition had been resisted by the respondents. The driver of the bus has questioned the maintainability of the petition as well as locus standi of the claimant to bring the petition. The accident is denied to have taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the bus. The case got registered with the police is said to be false. He has claimed that he was enroute Chandigarh – Rohtak and after taking refreshment at Parakeet Restaurant, he started journey and was F.A.O. No. 4816 of 2008 3 .. in the process of turning the bus, when he saw a car coming from behind at a very high speed. The car is said to have hit the bus at its right rear side. The stand of respondents No. 2 and 3 is the same as of respondent no.1. Respondent No. 4 has also taken similar preliminary objections. It is added that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It was also added that no information was given to it by the insured of the accident. The other averments of the petitioner are denied. As there was another connected claim petition, following consolidated issues were framed :- 1.Whether the accident in question took place on 6.4.2007 in the area of police station Sadar Kurukshetra on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus No. HR46-B-4905 being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 causing injuries to claimants Smt. Kamla Sharma and Charutta Sharma? OPP 2.If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation and if so how much and from whom?OPP 3.Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR-4 4.Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR 5.Whether answering respondent is not the owner of car no. HR05-0006, if so, who is the owner of the car? OPR F.A.O. No. 4816 of 2008 4 .. 6.Relief. Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 46,480/- to the claimant vide the impugned award. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Shri Surinder Singh Walia,learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kunal Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Shri M.B.Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although hospitalization of the claimant on account of the injuries was for a short period of three days, yet she had to remain confined to bed for six months. According to him, learned Tribunal has not awarded a single penny for loss of income during the period of recuperation. He has further submitted that Dr. Balbir Singh has spoken about the future operation of the claimant. According to him, only a sum of `36,480/- had been awarded on account of the expenses on the treatment and `5,000/- each had been awarded for pain and suffering and special diet. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded a single penny for the future operation that would be required by the claimant as stated by Dr. Balbir Singh. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and F.A.O. No. 4816 of 2008 5 .. learned counsel for respondent No. 4 have submitted that adequate compensation had been awarded to the claimant. According to them, the hospitalization is only for three days and it cannot be believed that she remained bed ridden for six months. They have submitted that the statement of Dr. Balbir Singh regarding future operation cannot be believed. Though the hospitalization is for three days and it ended after the surgery in which nails were fixed, yet the petitioner would have required more than a couple of months for recovery. The statement of Dr. Balbir Singh regarding the future operation cannot be discarded altogether. Future operation may or may not be required. It would depend on the quality of nails fixed in the bones. The Tribunal has noticed the medical bills of Kamla Sharma for a sum of ` 36,480/- and has awarded this amount as such. Learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that in case of road side accidents, the victims are not able to collect all the bills. So, a marginal increase at least was required, while allowing expenses of medicines, to the amount already shown to have been spent by way of the bills. The Tribunal has failed to allow any amount as compensation for transportation and expenses on attendants, which are also a reality in injury cases of road-side accidents. In these circumstances, I enhance the compensation as per the table below :- F.A.O. No. 4816 of 2008 6 .. Sr.No Particulars Compensati on awarded by the Tribunal (in `) Compensation now enhanced by this Court. (In `) 1. Medical Expenses 36,480/- 40,000-00 2. Pain and suffering 5,000/- 7,500-00 3. Special diet 5,000/- 7,500-00 4. Loss of income during treatment Nil 10,000-00 5. Transportation Nil 5,000-00 6. Attendants Nil 5,000-00 Total amount = ` 46,480/- 75,000-00 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from `46,480/- to ` 75,000/-, in the manner indicated above with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. remaining the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 30th , 2011 som F.A.O. No. 4816 of 2008 7 ..