In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No.2750 of 2008 Date of decision: October 05, 2009 Pardeep Kumar (minor through his father and natural guardian Jagdish Singh) .. Appellant Vs. Rajesh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Partap Singh, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (herein referred as “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 22.10.2007 awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by 10 years old boy namely Pardeep Kumar in a motor vehicular accident. Now he has come up in this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Brief resume of facts is that on 1.8.2005 at about 7.30 a.m. the applicant- claimant was waiting for the school bus for going to school at village Bilawal. In the meantime, the respondent No.1, while driving the bus bearing registration No.HR-46A-4097 rashly and negligently crushed his foot and knee. He was taken to R.C. Sharma Hospital, Charkhi Dadri where he was given first aid. Earlier the matter was not reported to the police as he was assured about the reimbursement of the expenses incurred on the treatment. However, when the respondents No.1 and 2 refused to bear the expenses the matter was reported to the police on 25.1.2006. The claim petition was contested by the respondent No.1, 2 and 4 who filed their joint written statement taking up the preliminary objections, inter alia, that it is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of the parties; no cause of action accrued against them; the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that respondent No.2 is the owner/administrator of the School Maha Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Atela and the alleged offending bus was not working in the F.A.O. No.2750 of 2008 -2- *** above said school. It has been further averred that the claimant had not received the injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The FIR lodged, after six months, is the result of collusion with the police. It has been further pleaded that the respondent No.4 is the owner of the bus and Headmaster of Geeta Vidya Mandir, Badhra and the claimant was not enrolled in that school. The respondent No.3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the accident took place on 1.8.2005 due to rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent No.1 Rajesh, who while driving the offending vehicle caused accident?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom?OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR 4. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the claim petition was partly accepted and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation. Arguments heard. Record perused. From the observations made by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal fell in error in categorising the heads qua which this amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded. But, it appears that he awarded this much amount on account of the fracture on the left leg. The disability certificate (Ex.P2) proved on record reveals that the claimants suffered 18% permanent disability due to injury on the left ankle, left foot and fracture of the head and left foot. Since the negligence of the respondent No.1 stood proved, therefore, the Tribunal was bound to classify the heads under which the compensation has been awarded by it inasmuch as the Tribunal should have awarded Rs.30,000/- on account of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. Nothing was awarded to the claimant on account of pain and sufferings, transportation, medical expenses and attendant. Notwithstanding F.A.O. No.2750 of 2008 -3- *** the fact that nothing was awarded to the claimant on account of expenses on the treatment, obviously for the reasons that no evidence was led, yet, the court should have made some guess work from the facts and circumstances prevailing over the case. Thus, while making some guess work, I deem it appropriate to award the following compensation. 1. Permanent disability Rs.30,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.10,000/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/- 4. Loss of studies Rs.10,000/- 5. Transportation Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.70,000/- Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. Now the claimant would be entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/- excluding the amount already awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. October 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge