FAO No. 5865 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 5865 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.1.2010 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala and another ..... Appellant vs Gurmit Singh and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. P. Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The present appeal has been filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as “the Corporation”) against the award dated 28.7.2009 whereby the petition filed by the claimant/respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, “the Tribunal”). Briefly the facts of the case are that on 19.8.2006, Gurmit Singh claimant alongwith Daljit Singh was going on scooter No. PB-07-H-6573 from his village towards Davida Ahrana to refuel the scooter. At about 4.30 p.m. when they reached a little short of adda Davida Ahrana, the offending bus bearing no. PB-11- N-0752 struck against the scooter while overtaking a car. The claimant and Daljit Singh received serious injuries and were admitted in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. FIR No. 11 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC against the driver. The claimant filed the claim petition which was allowed vide award dated 28.7.2009 by the learned Tribunal granting compensation of Rs. 3,83,703/-. It is this award which is under challenge before this court. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and going through the paper-book, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The accident in question is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the claimant who was only 21 years of age at the time of accident had suffered 75% disability in the said accident. Further it is not in dispute that the claim of other claimant Daljit Singh, who had also suffered injuries in the said accident, was satisfied by the Corporation. The main grudge of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation of Rs. 2 lacs awarded to the claimant for loss of income in the absence of any proof with regard to his earnings by the learned Tribunal was on higher side and deserves to be set aside. FAO No. 5865 of 2009 -2- While assessing the compensation of Rs. 3.50 lacs for loss of income and disability, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the claimant and his disability. The claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% in the said accident. Due to this disability, he has lost his mobility, efficiency and capacity to work as he was earlier working as a driver. With this disability, he has lost the pleasure of his life and it would also adversely effect his future life. Considering these facts, it cannot be said that the compensation of Rs. 3.50 lacs granted under these heads to a person who suffered 75% disability is on higher side. As has come in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant before the learned Tribunal that the actual amount spent on treatment of the claimant is more than Rs. 2 lacs. However, as during the course of treatment all the bills are either not taken or not preserved because the priority at that time is the treatment of the patient. In the present case, the claimant was critically ill and ultimately survived with 75% disability. The amount of Rs. 18,703/- granted by the learned Tribunal on account of medical expenses also cannot be said to be on higher side. Finally considering the age of the claimant/respondent; having remained hospitalized and 75% disability with which he will have to suffer throughout his life, the amount of compensation as has been assessed by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with. No other point has been raised. Accordingly, finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 6.1.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge