FAO No.3655 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3655 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.9.2011 Niranjan Singh ...Appellant(s) Versus Gurdeep Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Gaurav Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appellant through the instant appeal is seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 3.1.2009. The facts leading to the present appeals are that on 18.12.2005 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant was driving an Indica Car bearing registration No.HR-61-AN-HQ-1120 (T). When he reached in the area of village Sekhpura, District Patiala, he met with an accident with the truck bearing registration No.PB-11-C-2445 (for short `the offending vehicle), which was being driven by respondent No.2. Due to the impact, he suffered grievous and multiple injuries. In the claim petition, the injured/claimant FAO No.3655 of 2010 2 took the stand that the alleged accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties awarded the compensation to the tune of `43,400/- to the appellant on account of injuries sustained by him and held liable guilty the owner and driver-respondent No.2 of the offending vehicle. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award of the learned Tribunal, the injured/appellant has preferred the instant appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. From the perusal of case file, it emerges that the alleged accident took place on 18.12.2005 and due to which, the appellant suffered injuries. The appellant was working as a driver and was earning `3,500/- per month, which is not disputed. It is also made out that the appellant took treatment from Rajindra Hospital and Amar Hospital, Patiala and Rajan Hospital, Yamunanagar. However, there is no cogent evidence as regards to the expenses incurred by the claimant on the diet, attendant and transportation. The bills and prescription slips tendered in evidence and the entire amounts mentioned therein stands reimbursed. There is nothing on record on the basis of which, it can be said that the appellant spent any amount other than the reflected in the exhibits taken on record. In the absence of the same, this Court feels that there is no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned award of the learned Tribunal. The connected FAO No.3288 of 2010 filed by Surinder Singh Sheoran, the occupant of the car, has also been dismissed vide order of even date by this Court. In view of above, I find that the award of the learned Tribunal FAO No.3655 of 2010 3 is appropriate and well reasoned and accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for being devoid of any merit. 19.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE