F.A.O. No.722 of 2011 (O&M) 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.722 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 15th, 2011 Manoj Kumar .... Appellant Versus Rajesh 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. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents No. 1 to 2. Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. The claim petition brought by the claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) had been allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 15.1.2010 and a sum of ` 1,60,828/- has been awarded to the claimant as compensation for the injuries he suffered in a roadside accident that took place on 29.04.2008. F.A.O. No.722 of 2011 (O&M) 2 .. The claim of the claimant can be briefly put as under:- Manoj Kumar, the petitioner, has been 38 years old and employed as operator with M/s Knorr Bremse India Private Limited, Faridabad and was earning ` 14,500/- per month. He suffered injuries in a roadside accident that took place on 29.4.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.HR-29-G-3706 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant suffered injuries on his legs, chest, back and other parts of the body. He was taken to Escort Hospital, Faridabad where he remained admitted from 29.4.2008 to 12.5.2008 as an indoor patient. He was then taken to Dr. Rajesh on 13.5.2010 where he remained under treatment upto 12.6.2008. He was operated upon at Surya Ortho and Trauma Centre, Faridabad where he remained admitted as indoor patient from 12.6.2008 to 23.6.2008 and thereafter, he remained under treatment of Dr. Rajesh. He has claimed a sum of ` 5,00,000/- to have been spent on his treatment. He has, thus, claimed a sum of ` 15,00,000/- as compensation. Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have resisted the claim petition on various grounds. Since the scope of controversy in the present appeal is limited to enhancement of compensation, it would suffice to say that they have denied the personal particulars of the claimant, including the extent of the injuries suffered by the F.A.O. No.722 of 2011 (O&M) 3 .. claimant. The details of the treatment taken by him and the amount spent by him on his treatment have also been denied. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal settled the following issues :- 1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in an accident caused by offending truck bearing No. HR-29G-3706 on 29.4.2008 at about 6 p.m. near canal, sector 25, Faridabad due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, as alleged ? OPA 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPA 3. Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 1,60,828/- to the claimant vide the impugned award. Learned Tribunal found the claimant to be entitled to ` 3,609,828/- as compensation, but as he had received a sum of ` 2,00,000/- from the insurance company on account of a Medical Claim policy, the said amount was deducted from the aforesaid amount and the claimant was allowed a sum of ` 1,60,828/- only. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Ashok Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.N.K. Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. I have gone through the F.A.O. No.722 of 2011 (O&M) 4 .. record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is hospitalization of the appellant for two months in this case. According to him, the appellant was working with M/s Knorr Bremse India Private Limited, Faridabad and was getting ` 14,500/- as salary per month but loss of income during his treatment has been awarded in a sum of ` 10,000/- only. He has further submitted that a person, who remained under treatment as indoor patient for two months, must have stayed in the bed for another one or two months and if such a person had undergone 3/4 operations, his pain and suffering cannot be compensated by a sum of ` 10,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that a sum of ` 5,000/- has also been awarded by learned Tribunal as costs of transportation service of attendants and special diet, but allowing him this amount is too meagre and does not amount to just compensation towards costs of transportation etc. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that adequate compensation has been awarded to the claimant by learned Tribunal. According to him, some amount may be added to the same on account of expenses under the heads of expenses on attendants and special diet as these have been clubbed with costs of transportation. There is no dispute between the parties that the appellant remained as indoor patient at various hospitals for F.A.O. No.722 of 2011 (O&M) 5 .. about two months. A person is never fit to resume his duties after discharge from the hospital. He requires time for recuperation at home, for which he requires the services of attendants as well and needs special diet also. He continues to suffer pain during this period also. It is a case where a sum of ` 3,40,828/- has been found by learned Tribunal to have been spent by the appellant in his treatment and apart from allowing the said amount, the Tribunal has awarded just a sum of ` 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering, another sum of ` 10,000/- for loss of income and ` 5,000/- for cost of transportation, services of attendants and special diet. Learned Tribunal has committed arithmetical mistake in making the total also, which comes to ` 3,65,828/- instead of ` 3,60,828/- as calculated by the Tribunal. The claimant had claimed himself to be working as operator with M/s Knorr Bremse India Private Limited, Faridabad and drawing ` 14,500/- as salary. Learned Tribunal found no cogent evidence on record to prove this income of the appellant. He was, therefore, taken as casual worker and his salary was taken as ` 3,500/- per month. A person, who claims himself to be employed with a firm earning ` 14,500/- per month should not have been taken to be earning ` 3,500/- per month as a casual labourer. His income should at least have been taken as 5,000/- per month and loss of income during treatment should have been assessed at least for a period of four months. Therefore, a sum of ` 20,000/- would be required F.A.O. No.722 of 2011 (O&M) 6 .. to be awarded to the claimant-appellant for loss of income during treatment. Keeping the length of indoor treatment and the treatment thereafter, the amounts awarded under various heads require appreciable upward revision. The amount awarded for pain and suffering in a sum of ` 10,000/- is required to be revised to ` 30,000/- and the amount of ` 5,000/- assessed towards transportation, service of attendants and special diet is also required to be enhanced to ` 30,000/-. So, taken as above, the amount of compensation that could be assessed in favour of the claimant including the amount spent on the treatment, comes to ` 4,20,828/-, which can be rounded off to ` 4,21,000/- and deducting a sum of ` 2,00,000/- therefrom, the claimant is entitled to ` 2,21,000/-. Consequently, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from ` 1,60,828/- to ` 2,21,000/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 15th, 2011 som