FAO No.1713 of 2007(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1713 of 2007 (O&M) Decided on : November 09, 2009 Ashok Kumar ... Appellant VERSUS Babbi alias Vinod Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Anish Setia, Advocate for respondents No.1,2 and 4. Ms.Rimpaljeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal by the claimant Ashok Kumar is for enhancement of compensation, granted vide award dated 6.2.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (herein referred as `the Tribunal'), to the tune of Rs.30404.50 paise along with interest @ 6% per annum, against respondents No.1,3 and 4 jointly and severally. It was further observed that the amount of Rs.25,000/- already received by the claimant as per Exhibit R-1 would be adjusted against the compensation awarded and that the compensation would be paid by the Insurance Company. However, latter would be at liberty to recover it from the insured and the driver. FAO No.1713 of 2007(O&M) [ 2 ] The claimant having suffered injuries on 19.11.1999 due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 filed the claim petition for seeking compensation. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents. Amongst other pleas, respondents No.1 and 4, owner and driver of the offending truck took the plea that they had already compensated the claimant by paying Rs.25,000/- as full and final settlement of the compensation, therefore, no further compensation could be claimed by them. However, the case of the claimant is that since the amount paid by the respondent – owner was inadequate, therefore, he had to file the petition. Heard. There is no denying a fact that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident. The receipt Ex.R1 reveals that the amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by the owner of the offending truck to the claimant on account of the injuries suffered by him. More or less, the negligence has not been disputed. The claimant also led sufficient evidence before the Tribunal in order to establish that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of Madho Ram driver – respondent No.4. In order to prove the quantum of compensation, the claimant has examined himself and Joginder Pal as also Dr.S.K.Hans. The claimant while appearing in the witness box proved the medical bills Ex.A3 to A-132 and stated that he suffered pecuniary and propriety loss on account of the accident. He also disclosed that he remained under the treatment of different doctors i.e. Dr.Hans Raj and Dr.Ajay Abrol and remained admitted in the hospital for sufficient time. He has also proved disability certificated dated 12.12.2005 issued by Dr.S.K.Hans, whereby, the claimant has been FAO No.1713 of 2007(O&M) [ 3 ] shown to have suffered 100% disability. Lastly, he stated that he had spent Rs.6 lacs on account of the treatment. Notwithstanding the fact that the injuries with regard to which the disability certificate has been issued are not proved to have relation to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the year 1999, yet sufficient evidence has come on the record that the claimant suffered some injuries due to the accident. He has produced the medical bills Ex.A3 to A-132, worth Rs.30,404.50 paise for purchase of the medicines, but the Court has not awarded any amount to the claimant for the medical treatment, which he must have paid to the doctors. Nothing was paid for transportation, future treatment and the special diet and the amount paid to the attendant. Though, no documentary evidence has been brought on record in order to establish the aforesaid expenses, yet in such situation, some guess work was required to be made while putting himself in the position of the victim of the accident. As such, while doing so, it could well be observed that the Court certainly appears to have not awarded adequate compensation, in commensuration to the gravity of the injuries suffered by the claimant and thus, it needs interference by this Court. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances as also the evidence led by the claimant, it would be in the fitness of things if the compensation is enhanced by Rs.25,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. However, all other terms of the award shall remain intact. November 09, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE