FAO Nos.5755 and 6410 of 2010 and FAO Nos.1605 and 1606 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) FAO No.5755 of 2010 (in claim petition No.163 MACT of 2008) Date of Decision : 14.11.2011 Panchi Ram .......Appellant Versus Karan Singh and others .......Respondents (ii) FAO No.6410 of 2010 (in claim petition No.161 MACT of 2008) Sarla .......Appellant Versus Karan Singh and others .......Respondents (iii) FAO No.1605 of 2011 (in claim petition No.162 MACT of 2008) Urmila Devi .......Appellant Versus Karan Singh and others .......Respondents (iv) FAO No.1606 of 2011 (in claim petition No.164 MACT of 2008) Ayush .......Appellant Versus Karan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN 1 FAO Nos.5755 and 6410 of 2010 and FAO Nos.1605 and 1606 of 2011 Present: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate, for the claimant-appellant(s). Mr. Eklavya Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent-Insurance Company. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) CM No.25503 of 2010 in FAO No.5755 of 2010; CM No.28009 of 2010 in FAO No.6410 of 2010; CM No.4563 of 2011 in FAO No.1605 of 2011; CM No.4566 of 2011 in FAO No.1606 of 2011 The CMs are allowed. For the reasons mentioned in the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing and refiling the appeals is condoned. Main appeals Four appeals, namely, FAO Nos.5755 and 6410 of 2010, and 1605 and 1606 of 2011, are being disposed of by this single judgment, having arisen out of the same accident and the common Award dated 24.07.2009 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals, as emanating from the impugned Award, are that on 23.03.2007, the claimants-appellants, Smt. Sarla, Urmila, Ayush and Panchi Ram, were going to Pilani from Village Sarangpur in Maruti Esteem car bearing No.DL-3CAD-5333, being driven by the appellant-Panchi Ram. When they crossed Village Harpalu, a tractor bearing No.HR- 16E/8120, being driven by respondent No.1-the driver, Karan Singh, 2 FAO Nos.5755 and 6410 of 2010 and FAO Nos.1605 and 1606 of 2011 in a rash and negligent manner, at a very high speed, came from the Pilani side and directly hit against their car. Due to the impact, the claimant-appellants suffered serious and grievous injuries. The injured were removed to CHC, Rajgarh, from where, they were referred to the Arora Hospital, Hisar. FIR No.59 dated 23.03.2007, under Sections 279/337IPC was registered at Police Station Hamirwas (Rajasthan), against Karan Singh-driver, i.e. respondent No.1. In this background four separate claim petitions were filed by the claimants/appellants claiming compensation on account of the injuries suffered by them in the accident. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned Award, granted compensation to the tune of `1,20,000/- to Sarla, `1,80,000/- to Urmila, `8,000/- to Ayush and `12,000/- to Panchi Ram. Aggrieved therefrom, the appellants- claimants have approached this Court for enhancement of the awarded amount. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In FAO No.5755 of 2010, which has been preferred by the claimant-appellant, Panchi Ram, it has come on record that he suffered ‘fracture ribs left side with multiple injury with fracture carpel bone’. He remained in the hospital from 23.3.2007 to 26.3.2007. The learned Tribunal has granted a lump sum amount of `12,000/- on account of hospitalization, bills and fractures. Keeping in view the natures of injuries, it can be inferred that the appellant-Panchi Ram must have remained bed ridden for a 3 FAO Nos.5755 and 6410 of 2010 and FAO Nos.1605 and 1606 of 2011 substantial period of time. However, nothing has been awarded to the appellant on account of ‘loss of income and special diet’. In view of the above, a consolidated amount of `10,000/-, over and above the sum already granted is awarded to the appellant- claimant, Panchi Ram under the head, ‘loss of income and special diet’, which shall be payable to him within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this 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. In FAO No.6410 of 2010, preferred by Sarla, it is apparent from the disability certificate, Ex.P163, that she suffered 28% permanent disability. The learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of `50,000/- towards ‘permanent disability, loss of earnings during the period she remained hospitalized and confined to bed, future loss of earnings and loss of enjoyment’. However, in view of the principle of `2,000/- per 1% permanent disability as laid down in Ram Kiran Goyal Vs. SDE, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 103, the appellant is held entitled to another amount of `6,000/- under the aforesaid head. The amount of `8,000/- granted under the heads, ‘special diet and attendant’, also appears to be on the lower side. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be met in case the amount under this head is enhanced from `8,000/- to `15,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. In view of the above, the appellant-Sarla is held entitled to an enhanced amount of `13,000/-, which shall be payable to her 4 FAO Nos.5755 and 6410 of 2010 and FAO Nos.1605 and 1606 of 2011 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, she shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. In FAO No.1605 of 2011, the injured-claimant, Urmila Devi, suffered fracture on left leg and other parts of the body as is apparent from the record. She remained hospitalized from 23.3.2007 to 9.4.2007. As per the disability certificate, Ex.P162, the claimant- appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40%. The learned Tribunal has awarded a consolidated amount of `75,000/- towards permanent disability, loss of earning for the period of hospitalization and further loss of earnings and loss of enjoyment of life, which appears to be inadequate. As per the formula of `2,000 per 1% permanent disability set up in Ram Kiran Goyal’s case (supra), the claimant-appellant is entitled to an amount of `80,000/- towards the aforesaid head, instead of `75,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of `20,000/- against the head ‘pain and suffering’ and `12,000/- towards ‘conveyance charges, special diet and attendant’. However, taking into consideration the nature of injuries and the period of hospitalization, an amount of ` 25,000 and `5,000/-, respectively, is granted under the aforesaid heads, over and above the amount already awarded. In this manner, the claimant-appellant, Urmila Devi, is held entitled to an amount of `35,000/- as enhanced compensation, which shall be payable to her within a period of 45 days from the date 5 FAO Nos.5755 and 6410 of 2010 and FAO Nos.1605 and 1606 of 2011 of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, she shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. As regards FAO No.1606 of 2011, the injured-claimant, Ayush, was 10 years of age at the time of the accident. He remained admitted in the hospital from 23.3.2007 to 26.3.2007. The learned Tribunal has granted a consolidated amount of `8,000/- on account as compensation. Although, no fracture or disability was incurred by the appellant, however, in view the age and the fact that the child was subjected to 4 days’ hospitalization, he must have suffered trauma and remained absent from school for some time, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the amount of compensation is enhanced from `8,000/- to `15,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. The enhanced amount of `7,000/- shall be paid to him within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this 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. As a sequel of the discussion made above, FAO Nos.5755 and 6410 of 2010 and FAO Nos.1605 and 1606 of 2011, are partly allowed and the Award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 14.11.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 6