F.A.O. No. 4168 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4168 of 2009 Date of decision: 9-12-2009 Sachin ..........Appellant Versus Ajaib Singh and others ............Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Arvind Kashyap , Advocate, for the appellant Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the Insurance Company HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed by Sachin claimant against the award dated 2.2.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar whereby he awarded an amount to the tune of Rs.72,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the awarded amount. The brief facts are that on 13.3.2006 Sachin claimant was returning from his school i.e. Ashish Arya High School, Haibtpur on a bicycle to his village Maheshari. At about 1.00 p.m., when he reached near his field on the link road of village Maheshari, meanwhile, a school bus of yellow colour bearing registration No. HR 58-5948 of Sir Chhotu Ram Senior Secondary School, Rasulpur being driven by Ajaib Singh alias Bittu in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against the bicycle. He fell down and sustained multiple injuries including fractures. Soon after the accident, he was taken to Goel Hospital, Jagadhri F.A.O. No. 4168 of 2009 2 where he remained admitted till 25.3.2006. In their joint written statement Ajaib Singh alias Bittu driver and Sir Chhotu Ram Senior Secondary School owner of the offending bus have denied the taking place of the accident. They have pleaded that false case was registered against the driver. The respondent insurance company in its written statement has inter alia pleaded that FIR in this case was registered after 11 days of the accident and this unexplained delay shows collusion between the claimant and respondents No.1 and 2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident in question resulting into the injuries on claimant Sachin was the direct result of rash driving on the part of respondent No.1 Ajaib Singh, who was driving the bus bearing registration No. HR 58-5948? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what compensation amount the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the company is absolved of its liability?OPR 4. Relief After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award in terms as noticed at the outset. Feeling that the awarded amount is insufficient and inadequate, the claimant has filed this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. As is borne out from the evidence, immediately after the F.A.O. No. 4168 of 2009 3 accident, the injured claimant was removed to hospital of Dr. Mahavir Goel, who prepared the medico-legal report Ex.P-1. Dr. Mahavir Goel has testified that Sachin came to his hospital on 13.3.2006 having a lacerated wound 8”X4” over the antero lateral aspect of left arm starting from elbow and going upwards and the lower end of the humerus was broken in the supracondylar area and the muscle were cut and joint was exposed; that he operated the claimant and finally discharged him on 25.3.2006. The learned Tribunal has observed in paragraphs 13, 14 and 14-A of the impugned award as under:- “13. As per medical bills Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.38 and Ex. P.53 to Ex.P.62 the claimant spent Rs.19,298/- on his treatment. He has placed on file receipts of the hiring taxi Ex.P.39 to Ex.P.51 as per which he spent Rs.5200/- as fare of taxi. The amount can be taken to be exaggerated as PW.5 Satbir Singh had a private car and was not authorized to use it as taxi. So, this amount can be reduced to Rs.25,00/-. The total amount for medical treatment and transportation charges, thus comes to Rs.21,798/- which can be rounded off to Rs.22,000/- by including the amount of special diet. 14. The claimant suffered a fracture of humerus coupled with other injuries near the elbow point of left arm. He underwent operation. He remained in the hospital for about 12 days and then he went on visiting the hospital as an outdoor patient. So, he deserves an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. 14A In spite of treatment, the claimant was left with a disability of 16%. He has to suffer on account of his disability throughout his life. So, he deserves a amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and F.A.O. No. 4168 of 2009 4 suffering.” In view of the fact that the claimant is a child of 10 years at the time of the accident, has suffered a fracture of humerus coupled with other injuries near elbow and he underwent operation, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. To my mind, the ends of justice shall be met if an amount of Rs.25,000/- more is awarded as compensation. Thus taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to claim Rs.25,000/- as enhanced amount of compensation over and above the awarded amount. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondent insurance company within 45 days, failing which, this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per anuum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization. However, the respondent insurance company shall be entitled to recover the enhanced amount from Sir Chhotu Ram Senior Secondary School, Village Rasulpur, District Yamuna Nagar (respondent) as has also been held by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly this appeal stands disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 9, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No