F.A.O. No. 6030 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. F.A.O. No. 6030 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 17th, 2011 Ishan .... Appellant Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another .... Respondents 2. F.A.O. No. 6484 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 17th, 2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another .... Appellants Versus Ishan .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the appellant-claimant. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the respondents-Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. These two appeals arise out of the common award F.A.O. No. 6030 of 2010 2 .. dated 3.6.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which the claim petition brought by Ishan, a 17 years old claimant through his father Sh. Surinder Kumar as his next friend, has been allowed in a sum of ` 1,75,000/-. Ishan brought the claim petition under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of ` 5,00,000/-. F.A.O. No. 6030 of 2010 has been brought by Ishan, claimant for enhancement of compensation, while F.A.O. No. 6484 of 2010 has been brought by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (for short, “the Corporation”) challenging the compensation awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal. Since the two appeals have been preferred against a common award, they are being decided by way of this common judgment. The case set up by Ishan seeking compensation in a sum of ` 5,00,000/- is as under: On 8.9.2005, Ishan had to appear in his semester examinations. After appearing in the first semester examination, he went to the house of his aunt on a cycle. When he was returning to Thapar Engineering College, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as “the college”) for appearing in the evening examination and was near the Light Chowk near the college, a bus bearing registration No. PB-11-B-9370 of the Corporation came at a very high speed. No horn was blown from the vehicle and it had hit the cycle of the claimant. Ishan suffered many injuries in the accident on his left arm, abdomen F.A.O. No. 6030 of 2010 3 .. and back. The claimant was taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he remained hospitalized from 8.9.2005 to 21.9.2005. He underwent plastic surgery and this time, he remained hospitalized from 21.11.2005 to 25.11.2005. It is claimed that a sum of ` 63,075/- was paid as fee to the college which was lost by the claimant on account of this accident. The claim petition has been opposed by respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3, Avtar Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle had died and his name was deleted from the array of the respondents by the Tribunal. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their written statement have denied the accident to have occurred in the manner alleged by the claimant. It is averred that the accident occurred entirely due to the fault of the claimant, who was taking a wrong turn without caring for the signal and traffic rules. The other averments of the claimant were also denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether on 8.9.2005 near Thapar college, Patiala, claimant Ishan received injuries in a road accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing registration No. Pb-11-B-9370? OPP 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the present claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR F.A.O. No. 6030 of 2010 4 .. 4. Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 1,75,000/- to the claimant vide the impugned award. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Sherry K. Singla, learned counsel for the claimant (appellant in FAO No. 6030 of 2010) and Mr. Anupam Singla, learned counsel for the respondents- Corporation (appellants in FAO No. 6484 of 2010). I have gone through the record carefully. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of ` 25,000/- towards expenses incurred on the treatment including price of medicines. A sum of ` 30,000/- has been awarded towards pain and suffering and a sum of ` 15,000/- towards special diet besides a sum of ` 5,000/- towards attendant charges. Learned Tribunal has also awarded a sum of ` 1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of studies. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that besides the initial stay at the hospital for 13 days, the appellant stayed for 4 days again in the hospital. According to him, he had undergone surgery and his pain and suffering could not be taken as compensated by a sum of ` 30,000/- awarded as compensation in this regard. According to him, an amount of ` 15,000/- towards special diet and ` 5,000/- towards attendant F.A.O. No. 6030 of 2010 5 .. charges are also on lower side. He has submitted that no transportation charges have been awarded to the claimant. He has further submitted that a sum of ` 63,075/- was paid by the claimant to the college and he had to take the exam again and had to pay the fee again and, thus, he had lost the said fee of ` 63,075/-. He has lost one semester also and compensation in a sum of ` 1,00,000/- for loss of studies is also not adequate. Learned counsel for the Corporation, the owner of the offending vehicle, has submitted that there is nothing on the record to prove that an amount of ` 63,075/- deposited vide Exhibit C52 was for one year or one semester. According to him, nothing becomes specific on the record about the loss of studies of one semester by the claimant. He has further submitted that the compensation in a sum of ` 1,00,000/- for loss of studies is, therefore, unjustified. He has, therefore, prayed for reduction in the amount of compensation. A sum of ` 63,075/- is though proved to have been paid to the college in the name of fee for the claimant, yet it is not made clear as to whether this amount was for a semester or for a year. It has also not come by way of the record of the college as to whether there was semester system or not. However, even in the absence of the evidence of the college, the statement of the claimant to that effect goes unquestioned. A sum of ` 63,075/- was paid by the claimant as his fee. If there was semester system in the college, then this fee can only be taken for a semester. By way of this accident, the claimant F.A.O. No. 6030 of 2010 6 .. would have definitely lost his studies and, therefore, it cannot be said that the award of ` 1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of studies is on higher side or is unjustified for any other reason. Adequate compensation has been awarded to the claimant under other heads also. The claimant has not suffered any permanent disability. He has already undergone plastic surgery and must have even lost his scars caused by the injuries. The amount awarded as ` 30,000/- for pain and suffering, though, seems to be on higher side, yet the same would take care of the expenses of the claimant on transportation. In these circumstances, I do not find the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant either on higher side or on lower side. Consequently, both the appeals, i.e. FAO No. 6030 of 2010 and FAO No. 6484 of 2010, fail and are dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 17th, 2011 som