IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No.3782 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.9.2011 Mahinder Kumar @ Tirath Ram. ....... Appellant through Shri G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate. Versus Purkan and others. ...... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Shri J.S.Chahal, Advocate. Respondent no.3 through Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate. 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? .... VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J. Since the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, it was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 25 days' delay in its filing. The appellant claimed that his financial condition was not strong and he could not arrange money for filing the appeal immediately. He has further stated that he took some time in arranging the money and so, the delay has occurred. The appellant has supported his allegations in F.A.O.No.3782 of 2010 -2- ..... this regard by affidavit. The respondents have not filed any reply controverting the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, keeping in view the reasons mentioned therein, the application is accepted and the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned. In the appeal, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him vide award dated 15.112.2009 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. The amount awarded as compensation to the appellant is Rs.4,30,710/-. In the claim petition, the appellant had averred as under:- On 20.7.2008, Purkan- respondent no.1 was driving vehicle bearing registration no. HR-02 R 7375 in a rash and negligent manner in the area of village Kharwan near the bank. The appellant was walking on kucha berm of the road and respondent no.1 had hit him by coming on the kucha berm. After causing the accident, respondent no.1 fled from the spot. A case was registered against him vide F.I.R. No.95 dated 21.7.2008 at Police Station, Buria under sections 279, 336, 337 of the I.P.C. The appellant took treatment at Kohli hospital where his right leg was amputated. He claims to have spent a sum of Rs.2 lacs on his treatment and besides that, he has claimed spending Rs.20000/- on transportation and Rs.9000/- on attendant. He further claimed that he was earning Rs.6000/- by doing labour work and averred that he had been disabled on account of the accident. F.A.O.No.3782 of 2010 -3- ..... Respondent nos. 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the vehicle, denied the averments made in the claim petition. They pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was falsely implicated in the criminal case. Respondent no.3, the insurance company had denied the appellant to have suffered injuries or to have taken treatment and spent the amount claimed by him. It was denied that respondent no.1 was possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and for this reason, claiming violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the liability was sought to be avoided. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the claimant suffered injuries in an accident dated 20.7.2008 caused by respondent no.1 by driving the offending vehicle bearing no. HR 02R-7375?OPP 2. If issue no. 1 is answered in affirmative, from whom and what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled?OPP 3. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 without holding any valid and effective driving licence, at the time of alleged accident, if so its effect?OPR Taking evidence thereon and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal had allowed the claim petition with costs and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,30,710/- as compensation. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant has F.A.O.No.3782 of 2010 -4- ..... brought this appeal. I have heard Shri G.C.Shahpuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri J.S.Chahal and Ms.Vandana Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has not considered the period of 11 days for which the appellant remained hospitalized at Kohli Hospital, Jagadhri. He has submitted that the right leg of the appellant, which had suffered crush injury, had been amputated at Kohli Hospital, Jagadhri. According to him, after discharge from the hospital, the appellant was advised to have bed rest for 2-3 months. He has submitted that during this period of about three months, the entire income of the appellant was lost. According to him, some amount should have been awarded as compensation for that no work period. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- for transportation. According to him, this is grossly inadequate. The amount of Rs.3000/- awarded as compensation for expenses on special diet is also said to be less. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted, on the other hand, that the amount of Rs.3,67,200/- awarded for disability included the compensation for loss of work. According to her, there were no bills for expenses of transportation, as also of the special diet. Therefore, she has claimed that the amount awarded as compensation by learned Tribunal is sufficient. Although the compensation assessed for disability would cover F.A.O.No.3782 of 2010 -5- ..... the period of hospitalization because the same has been assessed by applying the multiplier, yet, the compensation assessed is by taking the loss of the appellant at 60% of his income. During the period of hospitalization and recuperation at home, the entire income was lost. He must not have been able to work for at least 3 or 4 months because one or two months were required for the wounds to heal and one or two months were required to adapt to artificial limb to work. The amount of Rs.1000/- on account of expenses on transportation is grossly inadequate. Now-a-days, the private vehicles charge enormously and for a patient like the appellant, he must have been obliged to take many rounds of the hospital during the treatment as well as after his discharge. Such like cases require special diet for healing and an amount of Rs.3000/- under this head is also inadequate. In these circumstances, the compensation awarded to the appellant requires to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.25000/- which would take care of loss to income during treatment, transportation and special diet expenses. The appeal is consequently accepted and the award of learned Tribunal is modified in the aforementioned terms. September 13,2011 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) “SCM” JUDGE