FAO No.1537 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1537 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.7.2009 Jitender Singh ......Appellant Versus Rajesh Kumar and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is claimant's appeal challenging the award dated 9.12.2008 passed in MACT Case No.66 of 2007 whereby the appellant has been held negligent for the motor vehicle accident equally with Rajesh Kumar, driver of motor cycle HR-07E-3978 and payment of compensation to the extent of 50% of the determined amount has been ordered. The appellant has also challenged the award of MACT on the ground that the amount of compensation determined in favour of the appellant is inadequate. Undisputedly, an accident took place on 22.4.2007 between motorcycle No.HR-07G-8671 which was being driven by Kashmir Singh (claimant in MACT No.65 of 2007) of which the appellant was the pillion rider and Rajesh Kumar-respondent No.1 who was driving motorcycle HR- O7E-3978 as a result of which the appellant suffered injuries. While contesting the claim petitions filed by the occupants of motorcycle No.HR- 07G-8671 (Kashmir Singh and appellant), driver-cum-owner(respondent No.1) of motor cycle No.HR-O7E-3978 in his written statement admitted the factum of accident but denied any negligence on his part and rather FAO No.1537 of 2009 2 took the plea that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Kashmir Singh, the driver of motor cycle No.HR-07G-8671, of which the appellant was a pillion rider, inasmuch as three persons were riding on the said motorcycle and Kashmir Singh who was driving the said motorcycle could not control the said vehicle as Karamjit Singh, a minor child of 5 years of age, was sitting in front of Kashmir Singh (i.e. lap of Kashmir Singh). Respondent No.2 (i.e. the insurer denied the factum of accident and submitted that the claimants had falsely involved the motor-cycle No.HR-O7E-3978 in collision with respondent No.1 just to grab money from the Insurance Company by putting a false and fabricated story. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that both the drivers of the motorcycle equally contributed to the negligence which caused the accident and held them liable jointly and severally and thus, 50% of the total compensation as determined was ordered to be paid to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any evidence which has been ignored in order to support his case. Admittedly, the child was sitting in front of driver of motorcycle No.HR-07G-8671 of which the appellant was the pillion rider. This fact alone is sufficient to hold that the driver of the motorcycle was somewhat negligent while driving and inference drawn by the Tribunal in this regard that the driver of the aforesaid motorcycle was not in a position to drive his motorcycle as effectively as he could do without the child sitting ahead of him, is liable to be sustained. It may also be noticed that while determining the total compensation of Rs.34,000/- in favour of the appellant, the Tribunal found that the appellant had sustained injuries on his left arm and wrist and the disability of the appellant was assessed as 6% due to mild restriction of FAO No.1537 of 2009 3 movement with muscle wasting left wrist. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs.4,000/- for treatment, Rs.5,000/- for pain, agony and special diet and Rs.25,000/- for his disability i.e. a total sum of Rs.34,000/-. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the appellant had produced bills of medicines amounting to Rs.3970/- and he did not produce any other bill to show any expenditure made by him beyond this amount. Even otherwise, there is no other evidence to show that he spent on special diet etc. Even the disability of 6% assessed vide Ex.P6 was because of mild restriction of movements with muscles which is bound to improve keeping in view the age of the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that there is no improvement. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. July 14, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE