FAO No.3310 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3310 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 29.04.2011 Bhjan Singh son of Bhag Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Satgur Singh aged about 26 years son of Krishan Singh alias Bhola Singh son of Jangair Singh resident of village Dhalewan, Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa .....Respondent Present: Mr. Pawan Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the award for compensation for injury suffered in a motor accident. The accident was said to have taken place by a collision of the 2nd respondent's tractor with the scooter in which the claimant was going. The accident was said to have taken place on 15.01.2009 and the complaint had been given the following day. The patient had been taken immediately to the private hospital and he had undergone a surgery for some injuries suffered in his abdomen area and in the chest. 2. In a case where there was complete denial of accident by the respondents on the ground that even no medico-legal report had been secured and there was no proof as to why the complaint had not been filed immediately, the Tribunal found that the delay was duly explained by the father himself, who had taken the claimant to a private hospital FAO No.3310 of 2011 (O&M) -2- nearby and if there was no entry in the MLR, the fact of accident is spoken to by PW3 and PW4 and the Tribunal found that there was no reason to discard their versions. The Tribunal also observed that the version of PW4 was duly corroborated by what was stated in the FIR, which was lodged on the following day on 16.01.2009 and proceeded to find that the accident had taken place only on account of negligence of the driver of the tractor when it suddenly turned to the right and thereby collided with the scooter and caused to the claimant grievous injuries. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the driver of the tractor had already known the claimant and only because he had informed the claimant's father immediately after the accident that there had been an accident involving his son, he was falsely implicated. He was trying to help the claimant by informing his parents so that immediate medical attention could be given but it was taken as a point against him to implicate him falsely in the accident. I am afraid, I cannot take a different view when I find that the Tribunal considered all the facts in view of the versions given by three witnesses of all whom the Tribunal found to be creditworthy. 4. I, therefore, reject the contention of the appellants that the vehicle was not in any way involved in the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the medical bills, which had been filed as such, some of them had been for the period far beyond the period when the claimant had taken treatment. It is brought through the evidence that there had been a exploratory laparotomy surgery for haemoperitoneum and haemothrax. The FAO No.3310 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Tribunal assessed the compensation under the following heads:- 1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.1,87,092/- expenditure of bills 2. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- 3. Transportation Rs.5,000/- 4. Special diet Rs.1,000/- Total Rs.1,98,592/- 6. The Tribunal has awarded modest compensation and has not even made any possible loss of income during the period when he was undergoing the treatment. The major heads of the claim, which has been awarded by the Tribunal only relates to medical expenses and component of general damages for pain and suffering and the pecuniary damages, which would be the expenses actually incurred have also been only modestly provided for. The appellants have actually put the vehicle on road without appropriate insurance, which was an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant are not entitled to any favourable consideration in appeal. 7. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 29, 2011 Pankaj*