F.A.O. No. 2179 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 2179 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 26th,2011 Purshotam .... Appellant Versus Munni alias Bijender and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.S.Dhull, Advocate, for respondent No.3 VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 21.7.2009. The appellant had brought a petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in a road side accident that took place on 2.3.2008. The claim of the petitioner is as under. On 2.3.2008, the appellant was returning to his village on his motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-31-A-8091 after selling F.A.O. No. 2179 of 2010 2 .. milk. He was near Ram Rai Bus Stand at about 1.00 PM, when one Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. HR-33-E-0206 came from the opposite side. It is claimed to have been driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the motor cycle of the claimant, on account of which he fell down and suffered serious injuries. The claimant was taken to General Hospital, Jind wherefrom he was referred to P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak, where he took treatment upto 12.4.2008. Thereafter, he remained admitted in Jain Dharmarth Eye Hospital, Jind till 12.5.2008 and has claimed that during treatment, iron plate was fixed in his arm. He has sought compensation in a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs. The respondents resisted the claim petition. Respondents No.1 and 2 have denied the accident to have ever taken place. The story set up by the claimant is stated to be false. It is claimed that the claimant was under the influence of liquor and could not control his motor cycle and had hit the motor cycle against a pole of Forest Department and suffered injuries. Respondent No. 3 has taken a plea of collusion between the petitioner and the other respondents. Other pleas regarding misjoinder, nonjoinder of parties, locus standi and estoppel have been taken. It is claimed that the driver of the Marshal Jeep was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The other averments of the claimants have been controverted and the claim petition was prayed to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. F.A.O. No. 2179 of 2010 3 .. 1. Whether Purshotam (the petitioner) has suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing No. HR-33-E-0206 being driven by respondent no.1?OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him, if yes, how much and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the alleged vehicle No.HR-33-E-0206 was being driven in contravention of the terms and rules of insuranc policy? OPR-3 4. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR3. 5. Relief. Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- as compensation to the claimant vide the impugned award. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Shri K.S.Dhaliwal, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kansal, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri R.S.Dhull, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the bills placed on the record showing the expenses incurred during F.A.O. No. 2179 of 2010 4 .. treatment are for a sum of Rs.41,890/-, as noticed by the Tribunal in para No. 12 of the award. According to him, it is common knowledge that some bills are left uncollected and some amount has to be awarded for those uncollected bills. According to him, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.42,000/- as compensation for medical expenses. According to him, the amount awarded as compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/- for special diet is also inadequate. He has submitted that the appellant has undergone surgery and this amount cannot be said to be sufficient to compensate the claimant for the expenses incurred on the special diet of the appellant. He has further submitted that no amount has been awarded for expenses of the claimant on attendant. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted, on the other hand, that the amount awarded for medical expenses is a little above the amount proved on the record as spent on the purchase of medicines etc. According to them, some amount could be allowed as expenses of attendant and besides that, no other amount is required to be allowed or enhanced. When the treatment continues over a long duration of time, all the bills are seldom collected. At least in the beginning, when atmosphere is of panic, no bill is collected. Therefore, some margin has to be kept for such expenses while allowing compensation for the medical expenses. Special diet in a sum of Rs.5,000/- for a person who has undergone surgery and has remained hospitalized for good time, is also inadequate. Therefore, I enhance the amount allowed for medical F.A.O. No. 2179 of 2010 5 .. expenses from Rs.42,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and special diet from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and award Rs.10,000/- as expenses incurred on attendant. In this manner, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,70,000/-. The appeal is, consequently, allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,42,000/- to Rs.1,70,000/-. The other terms of the award shall remain the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 26th , 2011 som