FAO Nos.789, 790 and 1609 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) FAO No.789 of 2011 Date of Decision : 03.11.2011 Reshma .......Appellant Versus Satyavan and others .......Respondents (ii) FAO No.790 of 2011 Naveen .......Appellant Versus Satyavan and others .......Respondents (iii) FAO No.1609 of 2011 Sunil .......Appellant Versus Satyavan and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Shiwani Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 1 FAO Nos.789, 790 and 1609 of 2011 **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) Three appeals, namely, FAO Nos.789, 790 and 1609 of 2011, are being disposed of by this single judgment, having arisen out of the same accident. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals are that on 15.7.2007, the claimants, Naveen, Sunil and Reshma, were travelling on a motorcycle bearing No.HR-14A/8333, which was being driven by Naveen. At around 1.30 p.m., when they reached near the Punjab National Bank, Charkhi Dadri, a jeep bearing registration No.RJ-10C/0865, which was being driven by the driver, respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, cam from the side of the bus stand and directly hit against the motorcycle. Resultant, all the occupants of the motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries. The were removed to the General Hospital, Charkhi Dadri, from where they were referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. On the statement of Sunil, FIR No.156 dated 15.7.2007, was registered at Police Station, City Dadri. The claimants filed separate claim petitions before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by them in the accident. The learned Tribunal, while deciding the claim petitions preferred by the claimants, through a single Award, granted compensation to the claimants, Sunil, Reshma and Naveen, to the tune 2 FAO Nos.789, 790 and 1609 of 2011 of `30,000/-, `8,000/- and `30,000/-, respectively. The appellants have preferred these appeals seeking enhancement thereof. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, it is made out that the accident occurred due to the head-on collision between the two vehicles. The road was wide enough to accommodate the two vehicles coming from the opposite sides to pass simultaneously. The claimants could not prove that the offending jeep had hit their motorcycle by coming on the wrong side. It has also come on record that the motorcycle was being driven by Naveen, who was minor at the time of the accident and could not have been in possession of a driving licence. Therefore, the present is a case of contributory negligence and it has been rightly held so by the learned Tribunal. The learned has Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of `30,000/- to the claimant-appellant, Sunil, which includes, ` 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering, `8,000/- against medical expenses, and `12,000/- towards the loss of income. As regards the claim of Reshma, she has been granted a total compensation of `8,000/-, viz., `6,000/- towards pain and suffering, and `2,000/- for medical expenses and transportation. After going through the record and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded to the claimant- appellants, Sunil and Reshma, is just and reasonable, and no case for 3 FAO Nos.789, 790 and 1609 of 2011 enhancement thereof is made out. Consequently, FAO Nos.789 and 1609 of 2011, fail and are hereby dismissed. As regards the claim of Naveen, he was minor at the time of the accident and this being so, he ought not to have driven the motorcycle. It has come on record that he suffered injuries on lips and teeth and took treatment from different dental hospitals. It was also claimed that he had lost his tooth in the accident, although he could not prove this fact by way of evidence. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and by taking a compassionate view, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of `15,000/- on account of the hampered marriage prospects. The compensation granted under all other heads seems just and reasonable. The enhanced amount of `15,000/- shall be payable to the appellant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment failing which he shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the appeal till it is paid. Accordingly, the FAO No.790 is partly allowed and the Award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 03.11.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 4