In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No.2643 of 2009 Date of decision: December 21, 2009 Teja Ram and others .. Appellants Vs. Dharminder Singh .. Respondent F.A.O. No. 2644 of 2009 Teja Ram and others .. Appellants Vs. Gurmeet Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This order of mine shall dispose of two connected appeals No.2643-44 of 2009, having arisen out of the same judgment dated 4.3.2009 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, awarding compensation as under :- Case No. & title Compensation MACT Case No.151 of 2006, Dharminder Singh vs. Teja Ram and others Rs.2,02,000/- MACT Case No.152 of 2006, Gurmeet Singh vs. Teja Ram and others Rs.15,000/- The claimant Dharminder Singh sustained multiple injuries in a motor vehicular accident on 13.4.2006. He remained admitted in General Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, Silver Oak, Mohali and Mission Hospital Ambala City for treatment. He underwent surgery and spent Rs.2 lacs on his treatment. It has also come in evidence that he finds diffiuclty in walking and has become handicapped to the extent of 50%. Disability certificate Ex.C-1, as has been placed on record, reveals that the disability suffered by the claimant is to the extent of 50%. No document in rebuttal has been proved by the respondents. F.A.O. No.2643 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 2644 of 2009 -2- In order to prove the rashness and negligence the evidence led by the claimant remained unrebutted. The testimony of the claimant Dharminder Singh (PW-1) for no reasons could be discarded and the same gets corroboration from the FIR (Ex.C3). Now coming to the quantum of compensation, both the cases are taken one by one. MACT Case No.151 of 2006, Dharambir Singh vs. Teja Ram and others The medical bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-190 as well as disability certificate Ex.C1, proved by the claimant, have duly been proved on the record. The Tribunal appears to have rightly appreciated this documentary evidence and rightly awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,02,000/-. It has also been observed in case Piara Singh and others vs. Satpal Kumar and others, 2007 (2) PLJ 143 that Rs.2000/- are to be granted each for 1% disability. The learned counsel has contended that the disability certificate Ex.C-1, as placed on record, was not perse-admissible in evidence as no doctor has been examined in order to prove the disability certificate as well as the medical bills, as such, the same is required to be taken out of consideration. The medical bills as well as disability certificate were issued by the doctors and the medical practitioners in due course of their duties or in the ordinary course of their business which have been proved on record without any objection on behalf of the respondent. A document once admitted without objection could not be objected to at the appellate stage. Thus, the Tribunal after taking stock of the entire evidence, appears to have awarded reasonable compensation. As regards awarding of interest, the Tribunal in its discretion has awarded interest @ 9% per annum which cannot be taken to be exorbitant. Consequently, no merit could be found in this contention. MACT Case No.152 of 2006, Gurmeet Singh vs. Teja Ram and othes In the case of injuries to the appellant Gurmeet Singh, the Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs.15000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Notwithstanding the fact that the claimant has not proved any medical bills pertaining to his treatment, yet photo copies of the documents of Sarwal Hospital, Ambala City has been produced on record from where it could easily be made out that the claimant suffered injuries in a road side F.A.O. No.2643 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 2644 of 2009 -3- accident on 13.4.2006 and two fractures have been indicated therein. The claimant might have suffered a lot on account of these injuries and the fractures suffered by him. Though, the claimant could not produce any medical bill, yet the court while sitting in the arm chair of an injured could well guess as to what must have been spent. The Tribunal appears to have rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.15000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. No grounds to interfere. Hence, both the appeals being devoid of any merit are dismissed. December 21, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge