FAO NO. 6057 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 6057 of 2010 Date of order: 22.11.2011 Ranbir Singh ..... Appellant Versus Arvind Kumar and others .... Respondents -- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. K.K. Kahlon, Senior Panel Advocate for the insurance company. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by Ranbir Singh, the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded to him for the injuries received by him in the accident in a sum of Rs.2,85,287/- by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short 'the Tribunal) vide award dated 15.5.2009. Ranbir Singh had claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- by way of filing a claim petition under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:- FAO NO. 6057 of 2010 2 On 10.04.2006 Ranbir Singh was moving in the city of Hisar on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-20D/5992 . He was driving the motorcycle at a slow speed, carefully and on his left side of the road. At about 10.00 AM when he was at T point near gate of Signal Regiment, an Army truck bearing registration No. (BA No.) 021-148743K was seen coming from New Chinkara Family Quarters, Hisar Cantt, Hisar. It was driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Looking to the truck, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, the claimant stopped his motorcycle near the T point . However, the truck had still hit the motorcycle, on account of which the claimant suffered multiple injuries on his chest, abdomen , lungs, ribs etc. He was taken to Army Hospital at Hisar Cantt, Hisar and thereafter he was taken to Jindal Hospital Hisar. Looking to his critical condition, he was taken to Metro Hospital Hisar. Later on he was shifted to Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute, New Delhi, where he remained admitted for his treatment. He has become permanently disabled and he could not resume his duties of contractor from which he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of six months. Respondents filed a joint written statement contesting the claim of the petitioner. The accident is denied to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck by respondent no.1. It is rather alleged to have occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner in driving his motorcycle. The other averments of the petitioner are denied and the petition is claimed to be dismissed. FAO NO. 6057 of 2010 3 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:- “1- Whether the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of Army Truck bearing registration No.021) 1487431, by respondent no.1 Arvind Kumar?OPP 2- Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP 3- Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ?OPR 4- Relief” The parties led their respective evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal has made the impugned award. Feeling dis-satisfied with the awarded amount, the claimant has brought this appeal for enhancement of the same. I have heard Shri Amit Singla, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. K.K. Kahlon, learned senior panel counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to award adequate amount as compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident. According to him, the claimant had remained hospitalized for about six months. According to him, for such a lengthy hospitalization, a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for suffering of pain and mental agony. According to him, a sum of Rs.5000/- has been awarded for special diet and transportation etc. According to him, no amount has been awarded for loss of income during FAO NO. 6057 of 2010 4 treatment or expenses on attendant. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that adequate compensation has already been awarded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization of the awarded amount. According to her, the appellant does not deserve any enhancement of the same. The expenses of the claimant on his treatment are proved by bills from Ex.P-1 to P-198, with small gaps, in a sum of Rs.2,75,287/-. In the name of rounding off the figure and allowing some amount for which the appellant might not have collected bills, a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- is deserved by the appellant as compensation for his expenses on his treatment. It is clear from the record that the appellant remained hospitalized for six months. If he remained hospitalized for six months, he would have required bed rest for a couple of months thereafter. Even if the income of the appellant is taken as Rs.3000/- per month, as is taken by the Tribunal, then a sum of Rs.25,000/- is required to be awarded as compensation to the claimant for loss of income during treatment. The pain and suffering of the appellant can also be well imagined on account of the lengthy treatment including long period of hospitalization. So a sum of Rs.5000/- for pain and suffering does not seem to be adequate compensation in this regard. At least a sum of Rs.25,000/- is required to be awarded to compensate him for pain and suffering. FAO NO. 6057 of 2010 5 A sum of Rs.5000/- to compensate the appellant for special diet and transportation is nowhere near being adequate. A sum of Rs.30,000/- for special diet and Rs.20,000/- for transportation with a sum of Rs.20,000/- for expenses on attendant is required, to be paid to the claimant to compensate him adequately. In these circumstances, the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal succeeds and is allowed , enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,85,287/- to Rs.4,00,000/- which shall be payable to the claimant in the manner and with interest as ordered by the Tribunal. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 22 .11.2011 JUDGE dinesh