IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (MVA)No. 47 of 2006 Date of decision August 21, 2009 __________________________________________________________ Ram Krishan ….Appellant Versus Vijay Kumar & others. ….Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Shri Debinder Ghosh, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2: Shri Dalip Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3: Shri J.S. Bagga, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan on a petition filed claiming compensation for injury caused to the appellant by the use of a motor vehicle owned by respondents No. 1 and 2. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record, held that the petitioner has suffered serious injuries in the nature of compound fractures in the left leg and thigh which have ultimately resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 45% and he had to remain admitted in hospital for about a period of 4/5 months. A sum of Rs. 3,64,775/- was awarded on all counts, as claimed. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 The claimant is now in appeal. It is undisputed before me that the claimant was working as a Coolie and at the time of accident and he was aged about 19 years. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that the petitioner remained hospitalized for a period of more than five months and during this time, an attendant was looking after him. He submits that the appellant was entitled to at least Rs. 100/- for a day for the time when he remained hospitalized towards the charges/expenses of the attendant. His further submission is that the appellant having suffered permanent disability in his leg and has been crippled for all times. Learned counsel submits that the appellant’s marriage prospects have been totally ruined. The claimant was in the prime of his youth and he has suffered because of no fault on his part. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and the record. PWs 4 and 5 Dr. S.R. Thakur and Dr. P.C. Verma proved the injuries and also the fact that the petitioner had undergone surgery and extensive treatment in IGMC hospital. It is undisputed before me that the accident took place on 8.5.2001. The evidence of the Doctors has remained unrebutted, that is to say that the admission of the petitioner for treatment in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla from 8.5.2001 to 18.8.2001 for the first time and again from 31.12.2001 to 16.2.2002 for undergoing extensive surgery is undisputed. There is no evidence on record on the question of quantum/expenditure which the petitioner has incurred. In these circumstances, it is difficult to assess the exact amount which is to be awarded to him. It would be in the fitness of things, if a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is granted on these counts as the claimant has suffered physical and mental trauma. Considering the nature of surgery which the petitioner underwent it is but natural that he would require an attendant not only in hospital but also for pursuing other activities immediately after hospitalization. 3 The second contention of the learned counsel is that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was wrong in awarding interest from the date of award till its deposit. This submission is accepted and rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum on the awarded amount payable from the date of accident till its deposit. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. August 21, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge