FAO No. 6985 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 6985 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision 12.8.2011 Balwant Singh Appellant v. Seema Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vijay Saini,Advocate for the appellant .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J C.M.No.30000-CII of 2010 C.M is allowed. Delay of 356 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Balwant Singh against the Award dated 8.4.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (for short the Tribunal). As per the case of Seema, on 31.7.2008, she was going with her parents on motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-41-B-2248, from village Todarmal to village Sardulapur. Her father stopped the motor cycle near Mangupur, G.T.Road, to answer the call of nature. A car bearing registration No. HR-20H-0755 (offending car) driven by appellant, came from the side of Village Talwandi Chaudharian, from the wrong side of the road, at a high speed, in rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle as well as the claimant. Seema sustained injuries and she was taken to Civil FAO No. 6985 of 2010 2 Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi. She was later referred to Vasal Hospital, Jalandhar. FIR No. 34 dated 4.8.2008, under sections 279/337/427 IPC, against the appellant, was registered a Police Station Talwandi Chaudharian. On these allegations, claim petition was filed by Seema before the Tribunal. Upon notice, none appeared for the owner-cum-driver of the offending car. He was proceeded against ex-parte by the Tribunal. Since the particulars of the Insurance of offending car were not available to the Tribunal, respondent No. 2 was deleted from the array of parties. PW1 Beero, mother of Seema was examined. She has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.P1, besides other documents i.e. OPD Slip Ex. P2, M.L.R Ex. P3, copy of FIR, Ex. P4, RC of the motor cycle Ex. P5 with other relevant documents, in order to prove the claim of her daughter. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was closed. The case of the claimant is fully established from the medico legal report, Ex. P3 produced in evidence. As per Ex.P3, in the accident, the appellant received injuries in the lower limb and fracture of right shaft of femur. Consequently the patient remained under treatment and was operated upon in hospital. She remained admitted in the hospital from 31.7.2008 to 8.8.2008. In the FIR Ex. P4, it was clearly mentioned that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car. This fact was also proved from the uncorroborated evidence of the mother of claimant Seema, an eye witness to the accident. Due to the accident, Seema suffered 18% permanent disability, which is proved from disability certificate Ex.P56. In the statement of PW1, mother of the claimant, an expenditure of Rs. 1,38,223/- was spent on the treatment of Seema and the documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P53, issued by various authorities were submitted FAO No. 6985 of 2010 3 in support thereof. The Ld. Tribunal, after taking into consideration the evidence produced on record and in view of the law laid down in R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) P.Ltd., 1995 Vol.II P.L.R. 298, Supreme Court, awarded a total amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the claimant vide Award dated 8.4.2009. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant,Driver-cum-Owner of the offending vehicle, filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the case file, this Court feels that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to the claimant-Seema, a 15 year old school going girl who suffered 18% permanent disability coupled with the fact that her physical injury must have been accompanied by mental agony as well as psychological impact of the fact that her physical appearance about which the females are particularly concerned has also suffered. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the Award dated 8.4.2009 passed by the Ld. Tribunal. The appeal of appellant fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 12.8.2011 MS