IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1692 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.2.2009 Kundan ....Petitioner Versus Balwan and others ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the award of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dated December 1, 2005, whereby on account of pain and suffering the petitioner has been awarded a sum of Rs. 5964/- along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the accident the petitioner suffered injuries and remained hospitalized for two days. He even spent Rs. 964/- on medicines. But still learned Tribunal did not consider all these facts while assessing the compensation payable to him. The present petition is pending in this Court since 2006. Service to respondents is not being effected. Be that as it may, a perusal of impugned award shows that while assessing the compensation payable to the petitioner learned Court below noticed the fact that after the accident the petitioner remained hospitalized for two days. No fracture was seen on any part of the body. The petitioner admitted himself to be 70 years of age. He claimed that he spent Rs. 964/- towards medicines. Considering these facts, the learned Court below awarded Rs. 5000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of income and added a sum of Rs. 964/- thereon on account of amount claimed to be spend on medicines. Rs. 5964/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner which cannot be said to be on lower side. The claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act on account of accident are not meant for unjust enrichment. It should neither be a wind fall nor it should be negligible. It should always be just and adequate. It is only genuine claim, as is made out before the Court which can be granted and in the facts of the present case the amount as awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The other fact which is evident in the present petition is that the petition has been filed by the counsel who had represented the petitioner before the Tribunal. He has signed the power of attorney on his behalf. Nothing has C.R. No. 1692 of 2006 (O&M) -2- been placed on record to show as to whether the counsel who had signed the power of attorney on behalf of petitioner was authorized by the petitioner to engage another lawyer by executing Vakalatnama for filing petition before this Court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. (RAJESH BINDAL) 18.2.2009 JUDGE Reema