FAO No.6958 of 2010 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 6958 of 2010 Date of decision. 05.12.2011 Badlu Ram .... Appellant Versus Rajnish Kumar and ors. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate for respondent no.2. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short 'the Tribunal'), in a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- vide award dated 20.05.2010. The claimant had sought compensation under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), for the injuries he suffered in a road side accident that took place on 12.08.2008. The case of the claimant is as under:- On 12.08.2008 he was riding the pillion of a motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-21/4440 driven by Ranbir. When they were near Community Centre, PLA, Kaimri Road, a car bearing registration no.DL-2CAH/7805 came from the opposite side. It was driven by Rajnish Kumar Sharma, respondent no.1 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and it had hit the motorcycle driven by Ranbir, FAO No.6958 of 2010 --2-- on account of which, the claimant suffered injuries. The petitioner was medicolegally examined by Dr. Mukesh Soni, vide MLR Ex.P-19. The claimant remained hospitalized from 12.08.2008 to 25.08.2008. He had fracture of both bones right leg accompanied by dislocation of left hip. By way of surgery, a pin was inserted in his left hip. The claim petition had been opposed by the respondents. Respondents no.1 and 2 have denied the very accident to have occurred and have even denied rash or negligent driving of car in question, which allegedly caused the accident. The remaining averments of the claimant are denied. Asserting that the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. at the relevant time, prayer was made for dismissal of the petition. Respondent no.3, National Insurance Company Ltd. had claimed in its written statement that the petition has brought in collusion with respondents no.1 and 2. It was pleaded that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have been violated. The remaining averments of the claimant have been denied and the petition was prayed to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal :- “1- Whether petitioner Badlu Ram received injuries in an accident which allegedly took place on 12.08.2008 near area of PLA Community Centre Kaimri Road, Hisar on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 Rajnish Kumar while driving car bearing registration No.DL-2-CAH- 7805?OPP FAO No.6958 of 2010 --3-- 2- If issue no.1 is proved whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP 3- Whether the petitioner has no cause of action/locus standi to file the present petition?OPR 4- Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR 5- Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy?OPR 6- Relief.” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has made the impugned award. Feeling dis-satisfied with the awarded amount, the claimant has brought this appeal for enhancement of compensation. I have heard Mr. Vivek Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.95,000/- for his expenses on treatment and ambulance. According to him, a sum of Rs.8,000/- has been awarded for special diet and attendant charges. According to him, the appellant, who has been 70 years old, suffered permanent disability at 15% and a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded for that. For pain and suffering he is said to have been awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.8000/- has been awarded for future medical expenses. He has submitted that no amount has been awarded for loss of future enjoyment FAO No.6958 of 2010 --4-- of life on account of the disability. He has further submitted that the amount awarded for special diet and attendant charges is also on lower side. According to him, charges of ambulance have though been awarded for which bill had been produced, yet, he required exclusive transportation after that also and nothing has been awarded to him in this regard. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that just compensation has already been awarded by learned Tribunal. According to him, marginal increase may be allowed here or there. The appellant suffered the injuries at the age of 70 years. He has suffered fracture of both bones right leg and 15% permanent disability on account of those injuries, which would not only hamper his routine work but would also reduce his earning capacity proportionately. A person is entitled to be compensated on account of disability under two broad heads. The first head is of loss of earning capacity which entails future loss of income and the second broad head is of loss of future enjoyment of life. Disability of the nature involved in this case is more painful when the person is of advanced age. In the case in hand, the appellant has been 70 years old at the time of the accident and he would feel pain on account of the disability more acutely than a young man. The claimant remained hospitalized twice. In the first instance, he remained hospitalized from 12.08.2008 to 25.08.2008 and in the second spell, he was hospitalized at Jain Ortho Hospital, Hisar on 02.07.2009. It is a common case of both the parties that the appellant remained FAO No.6958 of 2010 --5-- hospitalized for 23 days in all. The appellant has undergone surgical operations twice and for expenses on special diet alone, the appellant cannot be compensated by a sum of Rs.8000/-. Here the Tribunal has even clubbed the attendant charges with the special diet and has awarded Rs.8000/- only. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find a sum of Rs.25000/- alone could be said to be just compensation for the appellant for special diet and attendant charges. Similarly, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is the adequate compensation for his pain and suffering. As the appellant is of mature age, I find that a sum of Rs.20,000/- would be sufficient for compensating him for the loss of future enjoyment of life. Consequently, the compensation payable to the appellant is, thus, enhanced by a sum of Rs.47,000/-. The appeal is consequently allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,56,000/- to Rs.2,03,000/-, which shall be payable with interest as allowed by the Tribunal by way of the impugned award to the appellant. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 05 .12.2011 JUDGE dinesh