IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1773 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:11.11.2010 Harsandesh Singh ....Appellant versus Amarjit Singh Jat and others ...Respondents II. FAO No.1764 of 1992 (O&M) Anma Kaur ....Appellant versus Amarjit Singh Jat and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Both the appeals are against the award, one dismissing the claim petition and another awarding a modest compensation of Rs.2,300/- for injuries. FAO No.1773 of 1992 addresses the issue regarding the dismissal of the petition for compensation when the claimant had three injuries namely (i) a simple injury comprised of bruises on the right elbow; (ii) a laceration at chin 3 cm long; and (iii) FAO No.1773 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - laceration (right) submandibular region 2 cm. The Tribunal went on to dismiss the petition on the ground that at the time when the petition was filed, he was a minor but at the time of trial, he had become a major and the evidence had been given only at the instance of parents and since he had himself avoided the witness-box, the case had to be dismissed. Alongside the petition, there were four other cases where the same Tribunal had found the driver of the vehicle to be negligent and had awarded compensation. It is rather a strange logic that for non- appearance of a party, who was quondam minor, the case had to be dismissed for non-appearance of the party. If the accident was an admitted fact and the liability of the driver/owner was established, there was no need for the petition to be dismissed only for non-appearance of the party. The injuries were only ordinary through injuries 2 and 3 namely the laceration were stated to be grievous. I am not too sure whether there is any medical evidence to state that they were grievous injuries, for, laceration cannot become grievous. The petitioner must have had pain and suffering and for a trauma for an accident, I am prepared to admit to a claim of Rs.2,500/- in full quit with interest at 6%. The award dismissing the claim is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. 2. As regards the claim for enhancement of compensation which is the subject matter of appeal in FAO No.1764 of 1992, the claimant had again three injuries: (i) closed head injury with cerebral concussion; (ii) laceration forehead; and (iii) right side frontal hematome. All injuries were simple in nature and she was treated as FAO No.1773 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - inpatient for a day at CMC Hospital. The Tribunal had provided for Rs.300/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- for pain and suffering. I will add the same by another Rs.2,700/- and round it off to Rs.5,000/-. The additional amount will also bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. For such a small amount of claim, the case has stood for nearly 18 years, the Insurance Company ought to have a greater need to explain for this kind of rescaspalcated conduct. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company states that in a case of dismissal, it is not possible to compromise before Lok Adalat. I think this to be a strange argument. Here, in this case, the dismissal was not on merits but through a convoluted logic employed by a Tribunal. The Tribunal was allowing three other petitions but was dismissing only the claim petition filed by the claimant on the ground that he was a minor at the time when he filed the petition but he had even after attaining majority did not come to Court to give evidence. I do not know how it could have made the difference, if all that he was pleading was for the proof of the injuries through documents and for compensation for the injuries suffered. The Insurance Company must have ensured that there was hardly a contest except on the question of quantum. To allow for this type of litigation prolonged in Court constitutes a needless burden on Court's resources, I will award, therefore, nominally Rs.2,500/- each as nominal cost in each one of the case against the Insurance Company. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.11.2010 sanjeev