F.A.O. No. 5598 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 5598 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 17th, 2011 Jagdish Lal .... Appellant Versus Ram Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. M.B.Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for respondent no.4. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation. His claim petition brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moga (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 8.12.2009, awarding a sum of ` 4,00,330/- as compensation to him. The case set up by the claimant, Jagdish F.A.O. No. 5598 of 2010 2 .. Lal seeking compensation in a sum of ` 50,00,000/- is as under: On 13.4.2008, Jagdish Lal was coming to Moga from his village Jhandeana Sharki on his moped bearing registration No. PB-69-9320. Gulshan Lal was also coming to Moga on his motorcycle. When Jagdish Lal crossed Bughipur railway crossing and was little behind Bughipura Chowk, a truck bearing registration No. PB-29C-9174 driven by Ram Singh, respondent No.1, came from the side of village Bughipura. It was about 12.30 p.m. at that time. Ram Singh was driving the truck in a very rash and negligent manner as also at a very high speed. He had hit the moped of the claimant on account of which, the left leg and right foot of the claimant were crushed. Ram Singh alongwith his vehicle made good his escape. Gulshan Lal gook the claimant to Rajiv Hospital, Moga. His left leg and right toes were amputated there. He remained admitted at the hospital from 13.4.2008 to 26.4.2008. He spent a sum of ` 1,00,000/- on his treatment. He has become permanently disabled. He is unable to do any work and became dependent on his other family members. His kiryana business has also been ruined. The education of his children has also been affected. He is claimed to have suffered pain and agony for four months and has sought compensation in a sum of ` 50.00 lakhs. The claim petition has been resisted by respondents No. 2 to 4, who have not only denied the accident to have occurred in the manner alleged by the claimant, but have also denied his expenses in the treatment as well as loss on account F.A.O. No. 5598 of 2010 3 .. of the injuries suffered in the accident. Besides it, respondent No.4, the insurer has taken some preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition as well as cause of action with the claimant against the answering respondent. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether the claimant received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB- 29C-9174 by respondent No.1? OP claimant. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount, from which of the respondents and the manner of recovery? OP claimant 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding any valid and legal driving licence at the time of alleged accident? 4. Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of `4,00,330/- to the claimant vide the impugned award. Dissatisfied with amount awarded, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Vivek Goel, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Mr. M.B.Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4. I have gone F.A.O. No. 5598 of 2010 4 .. through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that besides the amputation of left leg, the right big toes of the appellant were also amputated for which the disability of the claimant was assessed at 80%. According to him, for this disability, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of ` 1,00,000/- as compensation. According to him, the Tribunal has not taken care to award compensation for future medical expenses of the appellant. According to him, a sum of ` 1,50,000/- awarded as compensation for pain and suffering, transportation, loss of business, loss of studies of his children and loss of future income is grossly inadequate. He has, therefore, prayed for suitably enhancing the compensation. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand have submitted that adequate compensation has been awarded to the claimant because he is continuing with his business after the accident. According to them, the disability of 80% is qua the lower limbs and it is not qua the whole body. They have further submitted that the claimant was aged 50 years at the time of accident and the amount awarded as compensation to him is not only adequate but also proper. In the accident, the appellant lost lower 1/3rd of his left leg as well as the toes of the right foot. The loss of toes cannot be underestimated. The toes provide stability to a person for standing on his legs. Though, the disability of 80% is qua lower limbs, yet it will not come below 50% if it would be converted F.A.O. No. 5598 of 2010 5 .. into disability qua the whole body. No effort was made by the Tribunal to have the disability assessed qua the whole body. Although, the claimant was 50 years old at the time of accident, yet, the compensation was required to be assessed not only for loss of future income on account of the disability, but also on account of future enjoyment of life. Life of the claimant seems to have been crippled by the loss of 1/3rd of the left leg and big toes of right foot. A sum of ` 1,00,000/- as compensation for the disability is definitely on the lower side. The amount of ` 1,50,000/- awarded for pain and suffering, transportation, loss of business, loss of studies of the children and loss of future income is also not adequate. Keeping in view the period of hospitalization and the fact that the life of the claimant has become a story of pain and suffering for the rest of his life, the compensation assessed in a sum of ` 4,00,330/- is inadequate and I consequently, accept the appeal and enhance the same to ` 5,00,000/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 17th, 2011 som