IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1600 of 2010 Date of decision:12th September, 2011 Shiv Kumar .......Appellant Versus Rajesh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is the first appeal of the claimants against the order dated 6.10.2009, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Rewari, vide which an amount of ` 2,32,421/- has been awarded to the appellant as compensation. The facts of the case in brief are as under:- On 30.09.2007, at about 11:00 am, the appellant was bringing his ailing mother to doctor for check up on his motor cycle bearing registration No. MH12DC-8212. When the claimant along with his mother reached the HUDA bye pass, he slowed down his motor cycle as his brother Pardeep was waiting there for them after attending his class at KLP College, Rewari. In the meanwhile, FAO No. 1600 of 2010 offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 28A-5000 came from the opposite side which was driven in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. It had hit the motor cycle of the appellant which brought him down. He suffered injuries and became unconscious. Brother of the appellant who was waiting for him brought him to General Hospital, Rewari, wherefrom he was referred to Delhi but was taken to Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon where he had taken treatment.. He has claimed that a case was got registered for this accident vide FIR No. 300 dated 30.09.2007, under Sections 279/337 IPC at Police Station Model Town, Rewari against respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have denied the very accident to have taken place in the manner alleged by the appellant and their liability to pay compensation. Respondent No. 3-M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. had contested the claim on the ground that respondent No. 1 did not have valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the said vehicle was not even insured at the time of accident. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 30.09.2007 within the jurisdiction of police station Model Town, Rewari due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. HR 28A-5000 by the respondent No. 1 as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of the compensation, petitioner is entitled to and from whom?OPP 2 FAO No. 1600 of 2010 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident?OPR 4. Relief.” After taking evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal gave the findings on the various issues and awarded compensation in a sum of ` 2,32,421/- as stated above. Since the challenge in this appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation, I have heard Shri Jaswant Jain learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Subhash Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant remained hospitalised from 30.09.2007 to 17.10.2007. According to him, besides hospitalisation for this period of 18 days, the appellant underwent a surgery for which Dr. Subrat Saxena was examined as PW-6, statement of which finds mention in para no. 18 of the award of the Tribunal. According to him, more than ` 2 lacs were spent by the claimant on his treatment and despite the treatment including the surgery, the claimant was left with 8% disability as was proved by Dr. A.K.Saini PW-9. This disability is said to have been on account of mild restricted movements of right knee joint with partial loss of stability and pain. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded compensation against this disability in a sum of ` 16,000/- which is grossly inadequate. He further submitted that only a sum of ` 10,000/- has been allowed for pain and suffering and nothing has been allowed on account of expenses on attendants, transportation 3 FAO No. 1600 of 2010 and special diet. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is adequate and proper and according to him, the disability is not of such type which would be deemed to be functional disability and therefore, a sum of ` 2,000/- per percent of disability is adequate. According to him, some amount may, however, be allowed as expenses on attendant, transportation and special diet only. Ex. P-1 to P-52 are the bills for purchase of medicines and other items during the medical treatment of the petitioner. The total of these bills comes to ` 2,06,421/-. In assessing compensation for pain and suffering no consideration has been given to the length of hospitalisation and the surgery undergone by the claimant. The disability which is proved by Dr. A.K.Saini, is on account of mild restricted movements of right knee joint with partial loss of stability and pain. It would amount to functional disability in case of everyone, even in the case of a student which is the case with the petitioner. In these circumstances, compensation in a sum of ` 16,000/- for disability is on a lower side and it deserves enhancement. The patient/appellant was not alone in the hospital. He was always attended to by his relatives and expenses were incurred on them. This aspect has been completely ignored by the Tribunal and so are the aspects of transportation and special diet . In these circumstances, the compensation deserves to be enhanced. Taking the income of the claimant, which he would have 4 FAO No. 1600 of 2010 earned when he took up employment to be ` 3,000/- per month. 8% disability would have caused him loss in a sum of ` 240/- per month which would come to ` 2,760/- per annum. Claimant suffered the disability at the college going age. I would increase the amount of compensation for the disability to `40,000/-. The appellant would be further entitled to ` 20,000/- towards pain and suffering and `20,000/- towards transportation charges, attendant charges and special diet. The compensation to which the appellant is entitled thus comes to `2,86,400/-. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from ` 2,32,421/- to ` 2,86,400/-. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. [VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE 12th September, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 5