FAO No.5696 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5696 of 2010 (in MACT No.122 of 2007) Date of Decision : 21.11.2011 Rahee Jain .......Appellant Versus Sanjay Kumar @ Puran and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The appellant, Rahee Jain (minor), has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation granted vide Award dated 19.5.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short, ‘the learned Tribunal’). Briefly stated facts of the case in hand are that on 30.09.2006, Sheela Devi, since deceased, her daughter-in-law, Ritu Jain, her grandson, Rahee Jain, and grand daughter, Manu Jain, since deceased, were going from Panipat to Madlauda in a Santro Car bearing No.HR-06K-0567, which was being driven by respondent 1 FAO No.5696 of 2010 No.1, Sanjay Kumar @ Puran at a high speed. When they reached near Thermal Plant in front of DAV School, suddenly 3-4 children came in front of the car. In order to save the children, the driver turned his car towards right side and struck against a Tata-407 truck bearing No.HR-39-0180, coming from the Madlauda side. As a result, Manu Jain succumbed to the injuries at the spot, whereas the remaining passengers including the appellant-claimant, sustained multiple and grievous injuries. The injured were removed to Ravindra Hospital, Panipat, from where, they were referred to Delhi, being in serious condition. Later on, they were admitted in Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Delhi, where Sheela, wife of Ram Dhari, succumbed to her injuries on 6.10.2006. Initially DDR No.18 dated 1.10.2006 was recorded at Police Station, Madlauda, but subsequently, FIR No.10 dated 9.1.2007 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, IPC, at Police Station, Madlauda, Panipat. In this background, four claim petitions were preferred which were disposed of by the learned Tribunal, vide the impugned Award. The claimant-appellant was awarded compensation to the tune of `37,000/- on account of the medical treatment, service attendant, special diets, pain and suffering etc. The claimant- appellant, Rahee Jain, has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement in the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 FAO No.5696 of 2010 From the perusal of Ex.P53 to Ex.P72, it is made out that the claimant visited various hospitals to seek medical assistance who was infant at the time of the accident. Though, there is no detail of the expenditure incurred on the treatment, however, the visits to the various hospitals/clinics is proved. The claimant is a resident of Panipat. The receipts pertain to different dates. Therefore, it can safely be believed that the claimant visited Delhi on various dates in connection with the treatment and must have incurred expenses on transportation. In the circumstances, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if another amount of `15,000/- is granted under the head, ‘transportation’. It is ordered accordingly. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems just and appropriate. The enhanced amount of `15,000/- shall be payable to the claimant-appellant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, failing which, he shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. The enhanced amount shall be disbursed to the mother, Ritu Jain, natural guardian of Rahee Jain, appellant- claimant, because she has spent sufficient amount on her child. With this modification in the impugned Award, this appeal is partly allowed. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 21.11.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3