F.A.O.No.3285 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.3285 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision 29.10.2009. Hardyal Kaur ...... Appellant VERSUS Mangat Ram and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vivek Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): C.M.No.18612-CII of 2009 For the reasons, mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. F.A.O.No.3285 of 2008 This appeal for enhancement filed by the appellant-claimant (herein referred as 'the claimant1') is in respect of the award dated 17.07.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court) Ambala, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,61,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in her favour and against the respondents jointly and severally, on account of the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident. The respondents have neither challenged the negligence nor their liability to pay the compensation. However, the claimant has sought enhancement on the grounds that she suffered fracture on her right arm at F.A.O.No.3285 of 2008 2 three places and was operated two times and also suffered head injury. Doctor asserted disability to the extent of 20% on account of mal united fracture of the right arm but a very meagre compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded on account of the aforesaid disability. Though she remained admitted in the hospital for about one month and has been rendered handicapped for the rest of her life as her right arm does not work and she had to depend upon others for doing daily pursuits but nothing was awarded towards the expenses on attendant during her hospitalization, future treatment and transportation. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions and also probing the award, it transpires that after the accident which had taken place on 09.09.2003, the claimant remained admitted in the hospital upto 17.09.2003 where external fixture was fixed on her right arm and she was discharged on 29.09.2003. Thereafter, she was re-admitted on 11.11.2003 on account of the non uniting of the fracture, therefore, she had to be operated upon on 14.11.2003 and bone grafting was done. She was ultimately discharged from the hospital on 27.11.2003. The disability certificate Ex.P4 reveals that she suffered 20% permanent disability. Though, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant on account of the expenses on treatment, pain and suffering, permanent disability and loss of service yet she was not awarded anything towards the amount spent by her on the attendant engaged by her during the period of her hospitalization, future treatment and transportation. It is further revealed that the claimant was not compensated for operations which she had undergone on account of three fractures on the right forearm and further due to non-uniting of the bones for which she was to be operated upon on 14.11.2003. Though, she F.A.O.No.3285 of 2008 3 remained under continuous treatment for about two months but the Tribunal compensated her while treating her period of hospitalization for one month. She cannot be returned her normal life yet reasonable compensation she deserved for her survival for the rest of her life and for follow-up treatment. Admittedly, nothing was paid to her on account of payment to the attendant during her hospitalization, future treatment and transportation during her visits to hospital w.e.f. 09.09.2003 to 27.11.2003. To award Rs.10,000/- on account of transportation, Rs.10,000/- for payment to the attendant and Rs.20,000/- for her future treatment would not be inappropriate. Resultantly, this appeal is partly accepted, the impugned award is modified by enhancing compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- over and above the award amount. However, the appellant would also be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition till its realization. No order as to costs. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.10.2009 mamta-II