IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 1316 of 1989 Date of Decision: 9.12.2008 Smt.Mamo and others ....... Appellants through Shri Baljinder Singh, Advocate for Shri K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate. Versus Ishwar Singh and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 and 2 through Shri Arvind Bansal, Advocate for Shri Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate. Respondent no.3 through Shri R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against award dated 8.2.1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 22 of 20.4.1987. Initially, Phulu, who was injured in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 20.9.1986, had filed a claim petition for grant of compensation, but during the pendency of the proceedings, he died and as a result of this, his legal representatives, who are appellants, were impleaded F.A.O.No.1316 of 1989 -2- .... as claimants. They pleaded that the death of Phulu was on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question and, therefore, compensation may be granted to them. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the factum of death being related to the accident was not established. However, it awarded a sum of Rs.10000/- to the appellants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation on account of injuries having been received by the deceased in the accident. The insurance company of the offending vehicle was directed to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation. Dis-satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the appellants have come up in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for the death of the deceased and in any case, it should have awarded more amount for his injuries which he had suffered in the accident as the same stood established on the record. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that since there is nothing on the record to connect the death of the deceased with accident, no compensation on that account could be awarded to the appellants. He further pointed out that there is not an iota of evidence to suggest that the deceased even suffered any injuries in the accident. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the award of the Tribunal deserves to be F.A.O.No.1316 of 1989 -3- .... modified. PW1-Dr.Brijpal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jind, testified that on 20.9.1986, he had medically examined Phulu and found the following injuries:- 1. Freshly bleeding lacerated wound 6 x 2.5 cm in size on right side of occipital region of skull, skin deep. 2. Freshly bleeding abrasion 2 in number of 2 x 1 cm on front and medial side of left knee joint. 3. There were 3 freshly bleeding abrasions on lateral side of right knee joint. This witness further stated that injury no.1 was kept under observation, whereas injury nos. 2 and 3 were simple in nature. He also deposed that these injuries could be received in a motor vehicle accident and duration thereof was within six hours. PW6-Dr.S.S.Sangwan, Reader and Head Orthopedic Unit-II, Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak, deposed that Phul Singh was admitted in their hospital on 6.10.1986 and was discharged on 30.7.1987. He further deposed that the patient was having traumatic paraplegia i.e. Paralysis of both the lower limbs. This witness stated that the patient was discharged on his own request and that when he came to their hospital, he was having 100 per cent permanent disability as he was unable to move about. Phulu is said to have died on 10.9.1987, i.e., barely two months after he was discharged from the hospital. However, unfortunately, there is F.A.O.No.1316 of 1989 -4- .... nothing on record to connect the death of the deceased with the accident. Although there is evidence to suggest that the death of the deceased had taken place not long after the discharge from the hospital, yet, the Court cannot accept the contention of the appellants that it happened on account of the accident in question. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any compensation on account of the death of Phulu. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is upheld. However, there is sufficient material on record to show that Phulu was injured in the accident which took place on 20.9.1986 as on that day, he was medically examined by PW1-Dr.Brijpal, who found the above mentioned injuries on his person. Further, PW6-Dr.S.S.Sangwan has stated that the deceased had 100% permanent disability and remained admitted in hospital from 6.10.1986 to 30.7.1987, implying thereby that for almost ten months of hospitalization he had suffered before he sought discharge. In this eventuality, the Court is of the considered opinion that a substantial amount must have been spent for treatment of the injuries sustained by the deceased and at least that amount could not have been denied to the appellants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case where the deceased had suffered 100% disability; and remained admitted in the hospital for about ten months, he would have required the services of an attendant throughout, besides spending money on medicines, transportation and taking special diet, I am of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate if a consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) is awarded F.A.O.No.1316 of 1989 -5- .... to the appellants as compensation. Ordered accordingly. The enhanced compensation shall be payable along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. December 09,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge