FAO No.16 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.16 of 2011 Date of Decision : 05.01.2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Binder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R C Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is directed against the award dated 14.10.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa (for short, the ‘Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed the claim petition for the award of ` 15,00,000 as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in the road accident on 21.08.2004. The offending vehicle in the instant case is a tanker bearing No.GJ-12W/5848 driven by respondent No.1. The tanker hit against the tractor trolley bearing No.HR-06-B/3630. All the occupants of the tractor trolley suffered multiple grievous injuries on their person. FIR No.182 under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC in Police 1 FAO No.16 of 2011 Station Sadar Mansa, was registered against respondent No.1 on 24.08.2004. The claimant suffered serious injuries on his person including his head, face, left hand and arm. He was removed to the hospital (Punjab Health System Corporation, Mansa), where he was further referred to Bathinda for CT scan. The claimant remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Mansa, from 21.8.2004 to 07.09.2004. He also received treatment from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. The claimant was about 30 years old at the time of incident. As per the claim of the petitioner, he was earning ` 15,000 per month from his agriculture work. He is a married person having minor children. 3. The complainant earlier filed a claim petition registered as MACT case No.01 dated 23.01.2006, R.T. No.30 dated 19.05.2006. Vide award dated 4.10.2007, he was awarded an amount of ` 36,000 as an interim compensation with liberty to file a fresh claim petition after obtaining the disability certificate. The claimant obtained the disability certificate on 20.02.2009 and filed the claim petition, which is under appeal. 4. The parties appeared before the learned Tribunal. A preliminary objection was raised by respondent No.3-insurance company, on the ground that the drivers of the tractor trolley as well as the tanker, were not holding valid driving licences and the tractor and the tanker were plied on the road against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The further stand of the respondent was that the offending vehicle was not holding any valid route permit for plying in the State of Punjab. The accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the tractor. The 2 FAO No.16 of 2011 accident, as such, was denied and the FIR was stated to be registered on incorrect facts. 5. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether claimant is entitled to compensation on the basis of disability, if so, its effect ? OPA. 2. Relief. 6. The claimant examined Tarun Kumar as AW1; with regard to the cash memos issued by his agency which are exhibited as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9. Chiman Lal, AW2, proprietor of M/s Mansa Medicos, Mansa, presented the record pertaining to the issuance of bills, Ex.A-10 to Ex.A-15. Ajaib Singh, AW3, also tendered his affidavit, Ex.AW3/A, and stated that Binder Singh had been earning ` 25,000 per month from his agriculture and dairy farming. He further deposed that after the accident, the claimant has been getting fits occasionally and is unable to perform his duties. Dr. R K Kaushal, AW4, Professor and Head, Neurosurgery, DMCH, Ludhiana, proved prescription slips, Ex.AW4/A to Ex.AW4/D. A disability certificate has also been placed on record as Ex.AX/1, test receipt, Ex.AX/2, and copy of admission slip and treatment, Ex.AX/3. 7. As per the disability certificate, Ex.AX/1, issued by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short, the ‘PGI, Chandigarh’), the disability was assessed to the extent of 81%. The certificate was issued on 20.02.2009. The instant petition was filed on 12.5.2009. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the decision in Ram Kiran Goyal Vs. Sub 3 FAO No.16 of 2011 Divisional Engineer, Mechanical and others, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 103, and taking into consideration the percentage of permanent disability, held that the claimant was entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 1,62,000. 8. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the Act, there is no provision of interim compensation. He has further submitted that the percentage of disability is not proved. The learned counsel has lastly submitted that the recovery rights given in the first award have not been given in the second award. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 10. From the perusal of the record, it is made out that while granting interim compensation on 23.01.2006, liberty to file a claim petition after obtaining the disability certificate was given by the learned Tribunal. The appellant did not challenge the order dated 14.10.2007 vide which, the liberty was granted by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the argument that the claimant cannot move the second claim petition, is not available to the appellant. The disability certificate was issued on 20.02.2009 by the PGI, Chandigarh, in which it has been recorded that the claimant suffered 81% disability. There is no circumstance or any document on record which raises any doubt about the authenticity of the document issued by the PGI, Chandigarh, an institute of national importance. No other point has been raised. 11. Resultantly, no interference is called for in the award dated 14.10.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa. However, the appellant is given right to recover the 4 FAO No.16 of 2011 awarded amount from respondent No.2-owner, if it deposits the awarded amount to satisfy the award. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 05.01.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 5