F.A.O. No.3724 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.3724 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 17th, 2011 Om Pal Yadav .... Appellant Versus Bhagwan Dass and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.S.Dhull, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, granted to him in a sum of ` 1,72,000/- by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 31.08.2009. The claimant sought compensation in a sum of ` 15,00,000/- in his petition brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. His claim is as under: On 15.4.2008, the appellant was travelling in a F.A.O. No.3724 of 2010 2 three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-55-G-4903 from his village Dooma to Gurgaon. The three wheeler was driven by Bhagwan Dass, respondent no.1, in a rash and negligent manner who did not slow down the vehicle despite warnings given to that effect by the claimant. When the vehicle was near railway crossing of Wazirpur, respondent No.1 lost control over the same and vehicle over turned resulting in injuries including fractures to the claimant. The claimant was taken to Paras Hospital, Gurgaon for treatment. A case was got registered with Police Station, Farrukh Nagar, Gurgaon by way of FIR No. 50 dated 16.4.2008 against respondent No.1. The respondents have resisted the claim petition. Respondents No.1 and 2 have denied the accident to have taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the three wheeler by respondent no.1. The FIR lodged against respondent no.1 is stated to be false. The other averments of the claimant have also been denied. The vehicle was claimed to be insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, respondent No.3, who has filed an independent written statement alleging that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. The amount sought as compensation is said to be highly inflated. The involvement of the three wheeler in the accident was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. F.A.O. No.3724 of 2010 3 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55- G-4903 by respondent No.1. OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of injuries received in the accident. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? OPR 4. Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 1,72,000/- to the claimant vide the impugned award. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashish Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.R.S.Dhull, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no compensation has been awarded on account of disability. According to him, the appellant remained admitted at Paras Hospital, Gurgaon for 11 days. He has suffered fracture of his ribs and femur and he has suffered a lot of pain on account of the injuries during the treatment and even now. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of ` F.A.O. No.3724 of 2010 4 1,52,000/- for medical expenses and has awarded a lump sum amount of ` 20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, loss of earning, special diet etc. He has, therefore, submitted that learned Tribunal has not been justified in limiting the compensation to ` 1,72,000/-. It is a case where there is no disability. The evidence regarding fractures may prove that he has suffered pain, but the disability is left if the fractured bones do not return to their original position or there is loss of some muscles, tendons, ligaments etc. No evidence was led before the Tribunal to prove any such disability. So, the compensation awarded cannot be enhanced by awarding any amount as compensation for the alleged disability. However, learned Tribunal was not justified in reducing the amount proved as spent on the treatment of the claimant. The amount proved to have been spent in the treatment of the claimant has been found by the Tribunal in a sum of ` 1,52,485/- and in the name of rounding off the figure, the amount awarded as compensation on this account is ` 1,52,000/-. There can be no denial to the fact that in case of road side accidents, all the bills are seldom collected by the victims or their attendants. So, some amount should have been granted as expenses incurred on the treatment without insisting for bills, besides the amount proved as spent on the treatment. In the case in hand, when the amount proved to have been spent in the treatment of the appellant had been found as ` 1,52,485/-, the same should not have been rounded off to the F.A.O. No.3724 of 2010 5 previous thousand rupees. Keeping in view the fact that some amount might have been spent on the treatment of the appellant without obtaining bills, I find a sum of ` 1,60,000/- as appropriate to be awarded as compensation to the appellant for the expenses incurred in his treatment. All other heads have been clubbed together by learned Tribunal and a sum of ` 20,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the appellant. It is undisputed fact before me that the appellant remained hospitalized for 11 days in the beginning at Paras Hospital, Gurgaon. He had suffered fractures of ribs and femur. He must have required attendant and exclusive transportation besides special diet. He would have lost his income during the period of his hospitalization and the period of recovery thereafter. Keeping in view all these aspects, I award a sum of ` 50,000/- to cover the heads of pain and suffering, loss of income during treatment, special diet, attendant and transportation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from ` 1,72,000/- to ` 2,10,000/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 17th, 2011 som