F.A.O. No. 961 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 961 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 2nd, 2011 Sada Ram .... Appellant Versus Daya Nand and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Anil Bansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by Sada Ram, the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by him in a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- by the the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 17.5.2010 for the injuries suffered by the claimant in a road side accident that took place on 5.5.2009. The claim petition brought by Sada Ram under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) is as under:- F.A.O. No. 961 of 2011 2 .. On 5.5.2009, the claimant along with his brother, Rajesh Kumar went to Sabji Mandi, Jhajjar with vegetables loaded in their TATA ACE bearing registration No. HR-55H-1759. After unloading the vegetables at Sabji Mandi, Jhajjar, they were returning to their village in the said vehicle. The petitioner was driving the vehicle at a slow speed and on his correct left side of the road. At about 9.00 pm, they reached village Yakubpur. In the meanwhile, the offending tractor with trolley driven at a very high speed came in a very rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and had hit the vehicle driven by the petitioner. As a consequence of this accident, the petitioner suffered several injuries. He was shifted to Farrukhnagar and then to Kathuria Hospital, Gurgaon wherefrom, he was referred to Paras Hospital, Gurgaon. Report in this regard was made to the police. The claim petition has been resisted by the respondents. The driver and owner, arrayed as respondents No. 1 and 2, have challenged the locus standi of the claimant to file the petition. It is claimed that he has concealed the true and material facts. According to them, the tractor in question has been involved in the case about accident in collusion with the local police. The FIR is also said to have been lodged after a gap of more than 2 days in collusion with the police. They have denied the accident to have taken place due to rash or negligent driving of respondent No.1. The personal particulars of the claimant have been denied. He is F.A.O. No. 961 of 2011 3 .. denied to have taken any treatment or to have spent any amount in the same. Reliance General Insurance Company, respondent No.3, has denied the offending vehicle to be driven by a person holding a valid and effective driving licence. Non joinder of necessary parties is also pleaded to defend the claim. Absence of valid permit for plying the vehicle is also pleaded. It is claimed that the injured himself was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is also added that the insured did not inform the answering respondent about the accident. The personal particulars of the injured are denied and the petition is prayed to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether the accident in question was caused by respondent No.1 while driving vehicle No. HR- 12A-6146 in a rash and negligent manner resulting into injuries to claimant Sada Ram? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation and if so to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence? OPR3 4. Whether respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR 5. Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned F.A.O. No. 961 of 2011 4 .. counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition vide the impugned award and has awarded a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- as compensation to the claimant for his injuries, suffered in the accident. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. P.R.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anil Bansal, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Ms. Vandana Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has not carefully examined the documents and has even failed to take into account some of the expenses incurred in the treatment of the injured. According to him, the hospitalization itself had been of 15 days and the injured was required to stay in the bed thereafter for recovery. He has submitted that no attendant charges has been awarded. He has also submitted that an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering, mental agony, transportation and special diet etc. which is too low. He has, therefore, prayed for enhancing the compensation. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the amount of the bills, which was not taken into consideration, had also been mentioned in the final bill, which has been taken into account by learned Tribunal. She has drawn my attention to F.A.O. No. 961 of 2011 5 .. paragraphs No. 15 and 17 of the award where it is claimed to become apparent. She has, however, admitted that no compensation had been awarded by the Tribunal for attendant charges. She has also submitted that some amount may be increased in case of compensation awarded for pain and suffering, mental agony, transportation and special diet. While perusing paragraphs No. 15 to 17 of the award, it becomes evident that the amount of Rs.25,686/- of the bills Ex. P1 to P24 has been incorporated in the final bill Ex. PW3/3. However, that does not take care of the amount of bills Ex. PW3/4, PW3/5 and PW3/6, which collectively are in a sum of Rs.5,600/-. No amount has been awarded to the claimants for attendant charges. It is a case where the appellant suffered injury on the head. Agony suffered by the claimant in such a case can well be imagined. Hospitalization is from 6.5.2009 to 15.5.2009 and it is of 10 days and not for 15 days, as is claimed by learned counsel for the appellant and admitted by learned counsel on the other side. However, after discharge from the hospital, one does not become fit to resume his work. Atleast he would require a month or so to recover from the effects of the injuries. The injured had been taken to various hospitals before reaching Paras Hospital, Gurgaon and exclusive transportation must have been required for the same. So pain and suffering, mental agony, transportation and special diet could not be covered by a sum of Rs.20,000/-, allowed by the F.A.O. No. 961 of 2011 6 .. Tribunal as compensation. It is a case where the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- as compensation. Taking into account the fact that the claimant suffered head injury in the accident, had to be hospitalized for 10 days, required bed rest for one month at least for recuperation and had to spend on transportation, attendant, special diet etc., a sum of Rs.60,000/- at least is required to be added to the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. Adding a sum of Rs. 5,600/- spent in excess of the amount allowed in the name of medical expenses, the claimant can be held entitled to Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.1,82,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,82,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-. The said compensation would carry interest as allowed by the Tribunal. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 2nd, 2011 som