FAO No.5204 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5204 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.9.2011 Sunil Kumar ...Appellant(s) Versus Rohsan Lal Batra and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Pankaj Katia, Advocate for the appellant. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The present appeal is directed against the award dated 20.5.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short `the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition of Roshan Lal, herein `respondent No.1' was accepted and the appellant (driver of the offending vehicle) was held liable to pay the compensation. The respondent No.1 filed the claim petition on the ground that both the drivers of the offending vehicle(s) were responsible for the alleged accident. The learned Tribunal after considering all the evidence on record and hearing both the parties accepted the claim petition and held liable both the drivers of the offending vehicle(s). The learned Tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:- Pain & Suffering: `40,000/- Loss of earnings : `42,200/- Special diet + attendant: `30,000/- FAO No.5204 of 2011 2 Transportation charges: `20,000/- Medical Bills: `1,69,700/- Disability: `50,000/- Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award of the learned Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at great length. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the findings of the learned Tribunal are erroneous and suffer from material irregularity and illeglity. From the perusal of record, it emerges that the driver of tractor No.HR-02B-4894 parked his tractor trolley without applying the hand-brake and left the same unattended, and the appellant while reversing his tractor, hit the stationary tractor, which set it into motion and it rammed into the scooter resulting into the injuries to the rider of the scooter i.e. claimant. The respondent No.1 remained admitted in Goel Hospital and was operated upon on 2.2.2009. Thereafter, the injured was again operated upon at Vardhman Trauma and Infertility Pvt. Ltd. Mujjafar Nagar (UP) on 29.3.2010. The injured/claimant suffered 20% permanent disability. While assessing the compensation towards medical expenses, the learned Tribunal considered the medical bills and statements of doctors and other witnesses, and then awarded the compensation under this head, which is appropriate in my view. The injured remained admitted for a period of 10 days in Goel Hospital, Yamunanagar and as per doctor's advise, there would be a possibility of second operation. Thereafter, he visited Vardhman Trauma Centre, Mujaffar Nagar on 26.3.2010, for his second FAO No.5204 of 2011 3 operation, from where he was discharged from there on 1.4.2010. Due to the accident, he remained on leave for a period of 82 days and suffered a loss of salary for that period. As per disability certificate, he suffered 20% permanent disability. Keeping in view the age, the extent of disability, period of hospitalization, post-operative care of the injured, this Court is of the view that he would not be able to do the work in a manner which he was doing immediately prior to the accident. Therefore, the amount of compensation should be such, which can sustain the victim, without adding the financial burden on the family. In the circumstances, I feel that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is appropriate in all the heads. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in limine being devoid of any merit. 13.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE