IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 270 of 1991 Date of Decision : April 20, 2009 Bhushan Kumar .....Appellant Versus Malook Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. G.S. Bawa, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. T.P.S. MANN, J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant with a prayer for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Vide impugned award dated January 09, 1991, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirsa awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant and against the respondents jointly and severally, besides awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. The appellant, who was posted as a Peon in the office of D.D.P.O., Sirsa suffered grievous injury on 21.1.1990 when he was F.A.O. No. 270 of 1991 -2- travelling in a Haryana Roadways Bus of Sirsa Depot bearing registration No. HR-24/2619 and coming from Hanumangarh to Sirsa. The bus was being driven by respondent No.1. When the bus had covered a distance of 1½ kms after crossing village Mallekan, its driver tried to overtake a tractor in a rash and negligent manner, besides not blowing the horn. As a result of which, the backside of the bus struck the rear tyres of the tractor. The bus went out of control and struck against kikkar trees which resulted in the accident in which the appellant and other passengers suffered injuries. According to the appellant, he received injuries on his face and legs. His left leg was fractured and a surgical operation was done. Inspite of the same, he could not walk as he had become permanently disabled, which affected his health, working capacity and age, so much so that he was unable to maintain himself and earlier 2-3 persons used to help him to answer the call of nature and one person was regularly attending upon him. He continued to remain on bed despite getting the treatment and advice of the doctors from time to time. His eyesight and memory had been reduced and he started suffering from nervousness and blood pressure. He was deprived from taking part in any function, marriage, travelling, etc., independently. Accordingly, he sought the grant of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. While dealing with issue No. 2 relating to the amount of compensation to which the appellant was entitled to and from whom, F.A.O. No. 270 of 1991 -3- learned Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant as compensation which included Rs.35,000/- for pain and suffering and also disability which was not permanent in nature, Rs.7,000/- for the amount spent on medicines, Rs.3,000/- for services rendered by the attendant and Rs.5,000/- on account of special diet and other connected expenses. It has come in the evidence that the appellant was operated upon for fractures but he had not been fully cured. He had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50%. Though the appellant could walk with the help of crutches yet the disability remained to the extent of 50%. This disability was not permanent in nature as according to Dr. M.K.Soni-PW2, the appellant was likely to take five to six months more to recover. Under these circumstances, amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant for pain and suffering as also disability, which was not permanent in nature was highly inadequate. The appellant deserved to be granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the said ground. As regards the amount spent by the appellant for medicines, receipts Mark A.1 to A.86 are available on the record. Though they are not formally proved yet fact remains that the appellant must have spent the amount of Rs.11,000/- which was the total amount of receipts mark A.1 to A.86. Even as per Dr. M.K. Soni-PW2, the appellant remained in the hospital for 10 days and thereafter was treated as an outdoor patient F.A.O. No. 270 of 1991 -4- and an amount of Rs.3000/- to Rs.4,000/- could have been spent on the medicines/treatment. Therefore, learned Tribunal was not justified in awarding an amount of Rs.7,000/- only on that count, more so, when receipts mark A.1 to A.86 were available on the file. The appellant was, thus, entitled to receive an amount of Rs.11,000/- for the medicines. The appellant, during the period of his treatment, was being attended upon by his close relations. The appellant remained admitted in Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak from 22.1.1990 to 30.1.1990. The appellant kept on receiving treatment upto 22.8.1990. In his cross- examination, Dr. M.K. Soni-PW2 also stated that the injured might have taken five to six months more to recover. Under these circumstances, amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded to the appellant for services rendered by the attendant ought to be enhanced to Rs.9,000/-. However, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded to the appellant on account of special diet and other connected expenses does not call for any interference. Resultantly, the amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded to the appellant for pain and suffering, besides disability which was not permanent in nature is enhanced from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, the amount spent on the medicines is enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.11,000/- and for the services rendered by the attendant, the amount is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.9,000/-. However, amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of special diet and other connected expenses is upheld. The total amount of compensation, thus, F.A.O. No. 270 of 1991 -5- stands enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. The amount of enhanced compensation shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally but the first charge shall be upon the Insurance Company as the vehicle involved in the accident stood duly insured with the Company. The appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 20, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO