FAO No.5711 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5711 of 2011 Date of Decision : 02.09.2011 The Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation .......Appellant Versus Gurdev Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant, Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation, is in appeal against the impugned Award dated 31.05.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, vide which an amount of `1,20,264/- has been awarded to the claimant-respondent No.1. 2. The learned counsel contends that the learned Tribunal failed to take notice of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that the driver of the motorcycle was himself rash and negligent and met with the accident due to over- speeding. He has also referred to the statement of PW3, Manjit Singh, an eyewitness, to support his assertion. However, there is nothing on record as to what was the prescribed upper speed limit in 1 FAO No.5711 of 2011 the area, where the accident occurred and whether the driver of the motorcycle was rash and negligent. Therefore, this argument has to be rejected. The other argument raised by the learned counsel is that the amount of compensation awarded towards the head ‘Loss of amenities of life’, i.e. `75,000/- is on higher side. I have perused the record. The claimant suffered two fractures in the right leg and locking plate was inserted. The claimant was also advised post-operative care and treatment. From the nature of the injuries, it is apparent that the claimant must have remained bed-ridden for a number of months and must have suffered certain amount of disability, though the disability certificate is not on record. But the facts speak louder than the voice. Therefore, keeping in view the nature and seat of injuries, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 02.09.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 2