FAO No. 863 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 863 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.5.2010 Lekh Raj ..... Appellant vs Karnail Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant/claimant has challenged the award dated 22.7.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). Brief facts of the case are that on 29.11.2005 Lekh Raj claimant along with Naresh and Kalu, was going on foot to their work. When they reached near Gurdwara Jorian, then a truck bearing registration no. HR-46-B-1156, driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Yamuna Nagar side and struck against him. Due to this, the claimant/appellant received multiple injuries. He was shifted to the hospital for treatment. FIR No. 403 dated 30.11.2005 under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC was registered at Police Station Farakput against respondent no. 1. The petition filed by claimant was allowed vide award dated 22.7.2008 and compensation of Rs. 35,285/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was granted. Still dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. Along with the appeal, he has also filed application for condonation of delay of 409 days in filing the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has spent about Rs. 1 lac on his treatment. He remained in hospital for one month where he was operated upon. Due to the accident, the appellant suffered mentally as well as financially. He has also become permanent disabled to the extent of 4%. The learned Tribunal has just granted Rs. 35,285/- which is on the lower side. As far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the accident, the financial and physical condition of the appellant had become so week that he could not contact the counsel for filing appeal before this court. It was also submitted that the delay was not deliberate and intentional and be condoned keeping in view the circumstances explained in the application. FAO No. 863 of 2010 -2- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the appellant produced bills of medicines and the expenses incurred on his treatment amounting to Rs. 16,285/- as Ex. P-3 to P-16. The learned Tribunal has granted the same amount to him and therefore, it cannot be said that the amount granted to him is not sufficient. The learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 8,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. The appellant has also been granted Rs. 3,000/- as compensation on account of special diet, Rs. 1,000/- on account of services of the attendant of the family member, Rs. 2,000/- to the appellant as expenses on the attendant and Rs. 1,000/- as transportation charges. In the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant with regard to his income, over time and the period for which he remained hospitalised, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered his monthly income at Rs. 2,500/- and granted him Rs. 5,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of income, keeping in view his injuries and period of hospitalisation presuming that he had not worked for a period of two months. The learned Tribunal has also granted interest @ 9% per annum which cannot be said on lower side. In view of the above, I do not find merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the main appeal is dismissed on merit, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed. 19.5.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge