F.A.O. No. 3270 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 3270 of 2009 Date of decision: 11-12-2009 Subhash Chand Advocate .........Appellant Vs Gurbachan Singh and others .........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the insurance company HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed by Shri Subhash Chand Advocate, claimant against the award dated 1.12.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra whereby he awarded an amount of Rs.85,000/- as compensation. The brief facts are that on 18.1.2006 the claimant had gone to New Delhi alongwith his friend Baljeet Singh. From a metro station, they hired TSR No. DL-IRD-2923 for going to South Avenue New Delhi. When the offending vehicle reached near Vijay Chowk, in New Delhi being driven by Gurbachan Singh respondent in a rash and negligent manner, it hit the pole erected in connection with the holding of the Republic Day Parade. As a result of its impact he suffered multiple injuries including fracture in the left leg. The respondents No.3 and 4 in their respective written statements have denied the accident. As alleged, there was no rashness and negligence on the part of Gurbachan Singh respondent in driving the F.A.O. No. 3270 of 2009 2 offending vehicle. The respondent insurance company alleged that the claimant did not suffer any serious injury nor the amount claimed was spent on treatment. It was further alleged that the person driving the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Respondents 1, 2 and 5 were proceeded exparte. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident in question resulting into injuries to Subash Chand took place on 18.1.2006 because of rash and negligent act of Gurbachan Singh, respondent No.1 while driving TSR No. DL- IRD/2923, if so its effect? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim-petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR 4. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? If so, its effect?OPR 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? If so, its effect?OPR- 3 6. Relief I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Dr. K.D.Sharma (PW-4) deposed that the claimant came to his hospital on 21.1.2006 as he had suffered fracture of both bones of the left lower leg along with a degloving injury and he was operated upon surgically. He has further testified that close interlocking nailing of the left tibia was done to fix the fracture. A glance through the impugned award would reveal that the appellant has not been awarded transportation charges nor attendant charges. Worse still, special diet expenses have also not been F.A.O. No. 3270 of 2009 3 given. The amount awarded on account of permanent disability as well as pain and suffering is also on the lower side. Taking into consideration the above facts I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.75,000/- as enhanced amount of compensation over and above the awarded amount. Accordingly, the above mentioned amount is awarded and the same shall be deposited within 45 days by the respondent insurance company failing which this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. With this modification in the impugned award, this appeal stands disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 11, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No