FAO No.1897 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1897 of 2011 in MACT No. 200 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.11.2011 Smt. Suman Gupta Appellant v. Rajbir Singh and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Ajay Gulati, Deputy Advocate General,Haryana .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J This appeal has been filed by the appellant ( injured-claimant) against the Award dated 16.11.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court) Karnal (for short the Tribunal). The claimant Smt. Suman Gupta has filed claim petition No. 200 of 2009 under sections 166/140/141 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Brief facts of the case are that on 18.1.2009, claimant Suman Gupta alongwith her husband Tirlok Nath, Som Parkash Bansal and Murti Devi were going from Karnal to Saharanpur in a car bearing registration No. HR-05H-5253. The car was driven by Vinod Kumar (since deceased).When they reached in the area of Police Station, Kutumbsher, District Saharanpur, a bus bearing registration No. HR-58-8959 driven by Rajbir Singh, respondent No.1, in rash and negligent manner hit the car. Vinod Kumar FAO No.1897 of 2011 2 driver of the car succumbed to the injuries on 18.1.2009. Trilok Nath succumbed to the injuries on 20.1.2009. Suman Gupta, Som Parkash Bansal and Murti Devi received grievous injuries and were admitted in S.B.D District Hospital, Saharanpur. Suman Gupta ( aged 65 years) suffered fracture of spine, oedema of the spinal cord, disruption of anterior longitudinal ligament of the spine and numbness of both upper limbs. She was shifted to City Orthopaedic Hospital, Karnal and treated there. It was alleged that the claimant became unfit to do her daily routine work due to the injuries received in the accident. She has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed alleging false implication of respondent No.1 in the alleged accident. It was pleaded that forged FIR has been lodged to claim false compensation. Respondents No. 2 & 3 denied the alleged accident and pleaded that false case has been registered against the driver of the Bus to claim compensation. It was further pleaded that it was the fault of the driver of car, who was rash and negligent and came with a high speed from the petrol pump to the road and struck against the left side of the bus. It was pleaded that the Bus was insured with respondent No.4. Respondent No.4, the Insurance Company denied the claim of the claimants pleading it to be false and concocted story of accident. It was alleged that the driver of the Bus was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the bus was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were raised: FAO No.1897 of 2011 3 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 18.1.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No. HR-58-8959 by respondent No.1 Rajbir Singh in which Suman Gupta, Vinod Kumar and Tirlok Nath sustained injuries and Vinod Kumar and Tirlok Nath succumbed to their injuries? OPP 2. If issue No.1 in proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR3 4. Relief.” After appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Ld. Tribunal accepted the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 27,300/- to the claimant vide Award dated 16.11.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Learned for the appellants submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,300/- which is inadequate and prays for enhancement of the same. A perusal of the Award dated 16.11.2010 shows that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs. 27,300/- to the claimant- injured by observing as under- “11. The burden to prove this issue was upon the injured-claimant Smt. Suman that how she is entitled to receive the amount of compensation. The present claimant has FAO No.1897 of 2011 4 led ocular as well as documentary evidence by proving that she received multiple injuries on her person due to the accident committed at the instance of respondent No.1 by hitting his bus against the car in which she was sitting and due to negligence on the part of respondent No.1, the accident took place. The claimant has examined herself as PW1 besides producing on record documents in the shape of medical record/bills. So far as medical expenses are concerned, the petitioner has placed on record the medical receipts/bills for a sum of Rs. 7300/-, which the petitioner is certainly entitled to receive as compensation. The claimant sustained multiple injuries on her body in the accident in question. So far as the amount of pain and suffering and mental agony is concerned, the injured has suffered a great pain and metal agony due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident and remained admitted as indoor patient in various hospitals as is evident from the documentary record placed on the file. So the petitioner is allowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and sufferings due to injuries sustained by her in the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, the claimant must have spent some amount on special diet etc. for speedy recovery of the injuries. In such a situation, the claimant is also awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of special diet. 12. In this way, petitioner Smt. Suman is awarded total compensation of Rs. 27,300/- with cost of the petition and with FAO No.1897 of 2011 5 interest @ 7.5% per annum till the date of recovery.” The Ld. Tribunal has awarded most adequate compensation keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7300/- as medical expenses; Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- on account of special diet. There is no scope to enhance the amount. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the Award dated 16.11.2010. The appeal fails and is dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 18.11.2011 JUDGE MS