FAO NO. 1082 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 1082 of 2011 Date of order: 21.11.2011 Mrs. Ritika ..... Appellant Versus Ravi Satija and another .... Respondents -- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. B.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the insurance company. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded to her by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short 'Tribunal), in a sum of Rs.88,431/- vide award dated 14.09.2010. The claim petition brought under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is based on the following averments:- On 04.02.2009 the claimant alongwith Anit Kumar had gone to a doctor at Amravati Enclave, Surajpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, on a scooter driven by the latter, which bore registration no. HR-49/5938. FAO NO. 1082 of 2011 2 When Anit Kumar was crossing the road through a gap in the verge of National Highway no.22 to go towards Pinjore side, Ravi Satija, respondent came from the side of Chandigarh while driving an Indica car bearing registration no.CH-04E-2039 in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the scooter, driven by Anit Kumar. The claimant, who was travelling on the pillion of the scooter, fell down and suffered serious injuries. She was taken to Radhi Devi Hospital, Amravati Enclave, Surajpur, wherefrom she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. She stayed at PGI Chandigarh from 04.02.2009 to 26.02.2009. A case was got registered regarding the accident by way of FIR No.32 dated 09.02.2009 at Police Station Chandimandir for an offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is claimed as compensation. The claim petition was dismissed against respondent no.1 for failure of the claimant to furnish his address . Respondent no.2, the insurer has contested the claim petition by questioning the maintainability of the petition, cause of action etc. It has taken a plea that the driver was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident and so the terms and conditions of the insurance policy had been violated. The very accident is also denied to have occurred with the vehicle in question. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal on 29.09.2009:- “1- Whether claimant has suffered injuries on account of the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, as alleged?OPP 2- If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimant entitled to compensation, if so to what amount ?OPR FAO NO. 1082 of 2011 3 3- Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid or effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so to what effect ?OPR2 4- Relief” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has made the impugned award. Feeling dis-satisfied with the awarded amount, the claimant has brought this appeal for enhancement of compensation. I have heard Shri B.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Tajender K. Joshi, learned counsel for the insurance company and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation. According to him, a sum of Rs.73,431/- as compensation to the claimant for the expenses incurred in her treatment and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of hospitalization, pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.5000/- for special diet and transportation etc. has been awarded. According to him, the appellant remained hospitalized for 22 days and she had undergone surgery. He has further submitted that some amount should have been awarded as compensation over and above the expenses proved to have been incurred in the treatment of the appellant because all the bills are seldom collected by the victim of road side accident or his attendants. According to him, no amount has been awarded to the appellant for expenses on attendants. He has further submitted that the appellant is likely to suffer permanent disability and no compensation has been awarded for future enjoyment of life. FAO NO. 1082 of 2011 4 Referring me to para no.12 of the award, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Dr. Shashidhar B.K., PW-4, who appeared from PGIMER, Chandigarh, has stated that the patient would require surgery of plating with bone grafting for the fracture and the final, resulting disability could only be assessed after the said surgery. According to him, Dr. Shashidhar B.K., PW-4 has stated that future surgery may cost Rs.30,000/- or Rs.40,000/- to the claimant. He has submitted that this statement of the doctor clearly proves that the appellant is required to spend much more on her treatment and she may still be left with disability. Learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted, on the other hand, that the appellant may be awarded some amount as compensation for expenses on attendants and some amount may be enhanced in the compensation awarded for pain and suffering. He has also submitted that some amount may be awarded for special diet and transportation. According to him, the appellant does not deserve a very big enhancement in the compensation. According to him, the amount awarded as compensation does not suffer from patent defect and so apart from minor enhancement, it does not require any substantial enhancement. The appellant has proved a sum of Rs.73,431/- as her expenses in the treatment so far. However, her doctor has stated that she would require another operation which would cost her Rs.30,000/- or Rs.40,000/-. The said statement of Dr. Shashidhar B.K., PW-4 cannot be completely discarded. However, from the possibility voiced by Dr. Shashidhar B.K., PW-4 of the disability, it cannot be said that disability would certainly FAO NO. 1082 of 2011 5 result in. Till date no disability has been assessed in the case of the appellant. It is true that in case of road side accidents, initially the bills for expenses on treatment are sometimes not collected. So some amount may naturally be allowed as compensation besides the amount proved to have been spent in the same. Keeping in view the said aspect, I find a sum of Rs.80,000/- to be the compensation payable for the expenses incurred by the appellant in her treatment. She is also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- as expenses on her future treatment. The amount awarded as compensation for pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and the amount of Rs.5000/- awarded for special diet and transportation is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Apart from it, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded as compensation for her expenses on attendants. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- for her injuries received in the aforesaid accident. The appeal is consequently allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.88,431/- to Rs.1,55,000/-, which shall be payable with interest as allowed by the Tribunal by way of the impugned award to the appellant by respondent no.2. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 21 .11.2011 JUDGE dinesh