FAO No.4094 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 4094 of 2009 Date of order: 08.11.2011 Sita Ram ..... Appellant Versus Kailash and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.B. Jain, Advocate for respondent no.3. -- Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimant Sita Ram for enhancement of compensation awarded to him vide award dated 26.05.2009 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short 'Tribunal') in a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. The claimant had brought his claim petition under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short 'the Act') seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road side accident. The facts leading to this claim are as under:- On 26.06.2007 Sita Ram was on his way to village Gomla on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-36G/4121. He was accompanied by one Jai Parkash son of Suraj Bhan. At about 9.00 PM, he was in the area of village Bhojawas. He had hit a stationery truck bearing FAO No.4094 of 2009 2 registration No.HR-47-3863, which was standing parked on the road without switching on the parking lights or putting up any other indication to show its presence to other persons using the road. The claimant suffered injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Narnaul and he was ultimately taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he remained admitted for 20 days. He has spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in his treatment. The injuries have resulted in permanent disability. He has claimed that he was 21 years of age at the time of accident and was doing a private job and earning Rs.5000/- per month. A case was got registered about this accident at Police Station Kanina. Respondent no.1 did not appear despite service. The claim is resisted by respondents no. 2 and 3, who have denied any negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. It is claimed that the motorcycle itself was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The insurance company has added that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 04.06.2008:- “1- Whether petitioner Sita Ram suffered injuries in a road side accident which took place on 26.6.2007 in the area of village Bhojawas (Police Station Kanina) due to negligence on the part of respondent no.1, the driver of truck no.HR-47-3863 ?OPP 2- Whether the driver of truck in question did not hold a valid driving licence, if so to what effect ?OPR-3 3- Whether the petitioner is entitled to award of compensation and if so, how much and from whom? OPP 4- Relief” FAO No.4094 of 2009 3 Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition vide the impugned award. Dis-satisfied with the amount awarded as compensation, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.B. Jain, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant remained hospitalized for 20 days at SMS Hospital, Jaipur. According to him, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90% of left upper limb. According to him, he had put on record bills of Rs.25,000/- of SMS Hospital, Jaipur, which is a government run hospital. According to him, in the backdrop of these facts, learned Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- in all for pain and suffering, expenses on treatment including hospitalization and medicines, conveyance and special diet. He has submitted that though the disability of 90% is of left upper limb but the left upper limb has become totally non-functional and this would not only cause him loss to his future income, but would also deprive him of enjoyment of life as well as would considerably reduce his marriage prospects. He has therefore submitted that learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation to the claimant. FAO No.4094 of 2009 4 Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that the permanent disability of left upper limb is not qua the whole body. According to him, it is curable and would be reduced with passage of time. He has submitted that the Tribunal has assessed adequate compensation, which does not deserve to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that with hospitalization for 20 days and expenses in the shape of bills of SMS Hospital, Jaipur in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.40,000/- covering practically all aspects is highly inadequate. Though the disability of 90%, which is permanent, is qua left upper limb only, yet it calls for grant of more compensation than awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant has been 21 years of age at the time of accident and his left upper limb became non-functional. His marriage prospects would come considerably down. He would require assistance of some other person throughout his life and would not only lose future income on account of the disability but would also be deprived of full enjoyment of life. Disability of 90% of left upper limb would be at best reduced to 50% if it is taken as qua the whole body. Compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would alone be said to be adequate for the loss of future income. To compensate him for loss of enjoyment of life and loss of marriage prospects, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- would be adequate. The amount proved as spent on the treatment is Rs.25,000/-, which is allowed FAO No.4094 of 2009 5 for the same. For pain and suffering, the claimant can be compensated by awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/-. A sum of Rs.50,000/- would be adequate compensation for expenses on the attendants, special diet and transportation. In these circumstances, the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries, he suffered in the aforesaid accident. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,30,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/-, which shall be payable alongwith interest as allowed by the Tribunal. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 08.11.2011 dinesh