FAO No. 2449 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 2449 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.5.2010 Himachal State Roadways Transport Corporation ..... Appellant vs Jagjeet Singh and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The Himachal State Roadways Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as, “Corporation”), being owner of the offending vehicle, is before this Court challenging the award dated 14.10.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panckula (for short, `the Tribunal'). Briefly, the facts are that on 4.7.2008, Jagjeet Singh respondent no. 1, aged about 64 years, was going from Kalka to Panchkula on his LML Vespa scooter bearing registration no. HR-49-1880. When he reached near Vishal Mega Mart at about 12.50 p.m., a bus bearing registration no. HP-12B-5694, driven by respondent no. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the scooter. Due to this, he received multiple injuries and his right leg was crushed under the wheel of the bus. The bus was owned by the Corporation. The injured was taken to Primary Health Centre, Pinjore from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Kalka. On 6.7.2008 he was taken to Silver Oaks Hospital, Mohali and surgery was done on 7.7.2008 and his right leg was amputated above knee. He was discharged from the hospital on 5.8.2008. Respondent no. 1 filed petition claiming compensation on account of treatment, attendant charges, special diet, medicines, transportation, etc. The claim petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 14.10.2009. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are not based on any cogent and convincing evidence. It was submitted that the right leg of the claimant was amputated above knee, however, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to him considering as 100% disability which is not as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was also pleaded that no disability certificate was proved by the claimant. Further it was submitted that the leg of the claimant was amputated due to diabetes and not due to the accident. FAO No. 2449 of 2010 -2- After hearing learned counsel for the Corporation and perusing the paper-book, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The accident in question was not disputed by the learned counsel for the Corporation. The main dispute is regarding grant of compensation on account of 100% disability. The contention of the learned counsel that no disability certificate was proved by the claimant has no force as this fact was proved by the claimant by producing Dr. K. K. Bansal. It has also come in the evidence that right leg of the claimant was amputated above knee. The learned Tribunal in para 13 of the award has given categorical finding by relying upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court that amputation of leg upto knee joint amounted to 100% disability. In the present case the right leg of the claimant was amputated above the knee as it was crushed under the bus. He remained in hospital for about one month. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant before this court shall be transferred to the learned Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant. Upholding of award in the appeal by the owner will not prejudice the appeal, if any, filed by the claimant, which shall be considered on its own merits. 12.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge