FAO No.3388 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3388 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.9.2011 Major (Retired) Surinder Singh Sheoran ...Appellant(s) Versus Gurdeep Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Sachin Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Gaurav Goel, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms.Anamika Mehra, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appellant through the instant appeal is seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 3.1.2009. The facts leading to the present appeals are that on 18.12.2005 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant was travelling in an Indica Car bearing registration No.HR-61-AN-HQ-1120 (T), which was driven by Niranjan FAO No.3388 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Singh. When they reached in the area of village Sekhpura, District Patiala, they met with an accident with the truck bearing registration No.PB-11-C- 2445 (for short `the offending vehicle), which was driven by respondent No.2. Due to the impact, the driver and the appellant suffered grievous and multiple injuries. In the claim petition, the appellant took the stand that the alleged accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties awarded the compensation to the tune of `77100/- to the appellant on account of injuries sustained by him. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award of the learned Tribunal, the injured/appellant has preferred the instant appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. From the perusal of case file, it emerges that the alleged accident took place on 18.12.2005 and due to which, he suffered injuries. The appellant suffered 12% disability. According to treating doctor Rajiv Sharma, PW3, the total amount charged from the appellant was `31,031/-. The bills in this regard, Exhibit P5 and prescription slips, Exhibits P6 to P10 tendered the entire amounts stands reimbursed. There is nothing on record on the basis of which, it can be said that the appellant spent any amount other than the amount reflected in the aforesaid exhibits. Besides this, there is nothing on record to suggest that the capacity of the appellant to work on account of physical disability stands lowered or diminished. In the absence of the same, this Court feels that there is no ground to interfere in the well- reasoned award of the learned Tribunal. The connected FAO No.3655 of 2010 filed by Niranjan Singh, driver of the car, has also been dismissed vide FAO No.3388 of 2010 (O&M) 3 order of even date passed by this Court. In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 19.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE