FAO No. 1879 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1879 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.7.2010 Bunty alias Vijender Kumar .. Appellant v. Lakha Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, `the Tribunal'). Briefly, the facts, as mentioned in the award of the learned Tribunal, are that that on 9.10.2005, Dharampal (deceased) was returning to his house on motor cycle No. HR-20K/7232 and the appellant was pillion rider at that time. When they reached near Blue Bird Hotel, bye-pass, a truck bearing No. RJ- 19G/1288, being driven rashly and negligently, came from Sirsa side and struck against the motor cycle from behind, as a result of which, Dharampal and the appellant received injuries. The appellant filed claim petition. Vide impugned award, the learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 47,000/- as compensation payable to him. Still dis-satisfied with the award of the learned Tribunal, he has approached this court for further enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that sufficient amount of compensation has not been awarded by the Tribunal, considering the fact that he had suffered permanent disability of his right lower limb to the extent of 4%. A nail was also put on account of fracture of femur. The amount awarded by the Tribunal on account of special diet, transportation etc. is also not commensurate to the amount spent by the appellant. FAO No. 1879 of 2010 [2] Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book. For the view I am taking, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents as the same will result in costing them more in terms of time and money than the amount of compensation, which I deem appropriate to enhance. The Insurance Company has been held liable to satisfy the award. Considering the fact that in the accident, the appellant suffered injuries in the right lower limb and had to be operated upon and a nail was inserted in his body. He had to remain hospitalised for about two weeks. During this period, besides loss of earning, a lot of amount is spent by the family of the injured, for which detailed accounts cannot be maintained. In such cases, a thumb rule has to be applied. A disability certificate showing the same to be 4% of the limb has also been produced on record. The appellant, in whose body the nail has been inserted, will either have to retain it throughout his life or get it removed after another operation. Considering the aforesaid facts, further sum of Rs. 5,000/- would be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the appellant by the respondents. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.7.2010 mk