F.A.O. No. 3246 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 3246 of 2009 Date of decision: 18-12-2009 Sunil Kumar .........Appellant Vs Harpal Singh and another .........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed by Sunil Kumar against the award dated 29.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra whereby she awarded an amount of Rs.4,73,000/- as compensation on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident alongwith interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. The brief facts are that on 6.12.2006, Darshna Devi since deceased alongwith Sohan Lal, Kartar Devi, Savitri Devi, Rajwinder Kaur, Jaswant Kaur, Sona Devi and Sunil were going in a three wheeler towards the side of Shahbad. The three wheeler was being driven at normal speed and on left side of the road. Around 11.30 A.M., when they reached near New Delux Dhaba, which falls in the area of village Teora, meanwhile a bus bearing registration No.PB-08AT-3452 being driven by Harpal Singh respondent at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came and struck against the three wheeler from behind. As a result of the impact, F.A.O. No. 3246 of 2009 2 all the occupants of the three wheeler suffered multiple serious grievous injuries. In his written statement, Harpal Singh respondent denied the accident. He has alleged that he is a trained driver and has valid driving licence and is not concerned with the alleged accident. The co-respondents also denied the accident in their respective written statements. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident in question resulting into the death of Darshana Devi and injuries to claimants Sunil Kumar, Kartari Devi, Savitri Devi, Rajinder Kaur and Jaswant Kaur was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration no.PB-08AT-3452 on the part of its driver, respondent no.1 as alleged?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the claimants have no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present claim petitions?OPR 4. Whether the claim petitions are bad for mis-joinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties?OPR 5. Relief: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award. Feeling that the awarded amount is inadequate, Sunil Kumar has preferred this appeal. Despite their service, the respondents did not come forward to contest this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides F.A.O. No. 3246 of 2009 3 perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted with a good deal of force that the appellant being a bachelor has lost his marriage prospects for his having become handicapped and this apart, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of loss of income during the period, the appellant remained confined to the bed. He further puts that the appellant has suffered fracture of his leg. Thus taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the awarded amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions. It has been rightly contended that no amount of compensation has been awarded on account of loss of marriage prospects or income during the period, the appellant remained confined to the bed. As per evidence tendered by Dr. Mrs. Bimla Gauri on 21.11.2007, she alongwith Jagmal Singh, SMO and Dr. Jagram Singh, Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra examined claimant, who was a case of fracture lower and fibula left side with fracture medial malleolus and they assessed his total disability to the extent of 7% which was due to mal united deformity left fibula lower one third part and mild muscle wasting left leg with swelling left ankle and issued disability certificate Ex.P.10 which bears the signatures of all members of the Board. The learned Tribunal in para 26 of the impugned award has observed as under:- “26. The evidence of the claimant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. Thus, from the oral as well as documentary evidence of the claimant it stands proved that he suffered F.A.O. No. 3246 of 2009 4 multiple injuries on his face, left leg, besides other parts of the body and had also suffered fracture injuries on his left leg and due to the injuries suffered by him, his face has become disfigured and the injury had left permanent scar on his face, for which he was got admitted in CHC, Shahbad. Copies of X- ray report Ex.P.28 and of MLR Ex.P8 show that the patient has suffered injuries fracture on left fibula in this accident. Ex.P.10 is the disability certificate.” Taking into consideration the above facts, I am of the view that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. The ends of justice shall be adequately met if an amount of Rs.20,000/- over and above the awarded amount is granted. Accordingly, the appellant is held entitled to claim an enhanced amount of Rs.20,000/- over and above the awarded amount. This amount shall be deposited by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the appellant shall be entitled to claim interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing till its realization. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 18, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No