F.A.O. No. 2804 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 2804 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 17-12-2009 Pawan Kumar .........Appellant Vs Murlidhar and Others .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Mukesh Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the insurance company HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 14.1.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul whereby he awarded an amount of Rs.3,23,000/- as compensation together with interest @ Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. The brief facts are that on 1.1.2007 Pawan Kumar claimant alongwith Deepak Kumar was going to village Bamanwas on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-26 AB/1491 driven by him on moderate speed observing all the traffic rules and on correct side of the road. Around 11.15 A.M. when he reached Narnaul-Nizampur road in the area of Narnaul, meanwhile, pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-02/IG/0271 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Murlidhar respondent came and hit against his motorcycle. As a result of its impact, the motorcycle fell down and he sustained several injuries on various parts of his body. Motorcycle was badly damaged. F.A.O. No. 2804 of 2009(O&M) 2 The respondent Murlidhar in his written statement denied the factum of the accident in question and asserted that a false case has been registered against him. Devender Kumar respondent No.2 was proceeded against exparte. The respondent insurance company in its written statement has inter alias pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the fateful day. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a vehicular accident which took place on 1.1.2007 at about 11.15 A.M. in the area of Narnaul due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. RJ-02/IG/0271 by respondent No.1 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 as alleged?OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPP 4. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident?OPP 5. Relief: I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Dr. Dinesh Podar (PW-3) testified that on 6.8.2008 he alongwith other members of the Medical Board examined Pawan Kumar son of Purshotam, aged 25 years, resident of village Nanu Kalan and found him suffering from permanent disability to the tune of 37% on account of range of motion of left knee joint reduced by 50% left hip reduced by 20% and shortening left lower limb 2-1/2 inches. The disability certificate is Ex.PW.3/A and medical bills are Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-73. Taking into consideration this evidence, I am of the view that there is a scope for enhancing the amount awarded as compensation. The F.A.O. No. 2804 of 2009(O&M) 3 ends of justice would be sufficiently and adequately met, if an amount of Rs.60,000/- more is awarded as compensation over and above the awarded amount. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs60,000/- which shall be deposited within 45 days by the respondent insurance company, failing which this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization. With this modification in the impugned award, this appeal stands disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 17, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No