FAO No. 2011 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH 1) F. A. O. No. 2011 of 1995 Date of Decision: December 08, 2008 Joginder Singh ...........Appellant versus Siri Ram etc. ..........Respondents 2) F.A.O. No. 2012 of 1995 Fakkar Singh ..........Appellant versus Siri Ram etc. ..........Respondents 3) F.A.O. No. 2013 of 1995 Smt. Indra ..........Appellant versus Siri Ram etc. ..........Respondents 4) F.A.O. No. 2014 of 1995 Smt. Angoori Devi ..........Appellant versus Siri Ram etc. ..........Respondents FAO No. 2011 of 1995 2 Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 * * * Sabina, J. Vide this judgment, above mentioned four appeals would be disposed of as all have arisen out of the award dated 04.01.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred as `the Tribunal). The case of the claimants, in brief, as noticed by the learned Tribunal in paras 2 to 5 of this judgment, is as under:- “ 2. Joginder Singh injured filed claim petition No. 93 of 91 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of compensation on account of the injuries received by him in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 26-6-1991 at about 1 a.m. on the intervening night of 25-6-91 and 26-6-91 near Village Gagsina, Police Post Munak, Police Station, Gharaunda, Tehsil and District Karnal. It has been submitted by Joginder Singh claimant that on 25-6-91, he alongwith others boarded a four wheeler No. HNK-3997 from Nilokheri at about 11 a.m. It has been alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the same rashly, carelessly and negligently. The driver was requested many a time by the other persons sitting in the vehicle to move the vehicle in a normal way and not at a FAO No. 2011 of 1995 3 very fast speed. However, the driver did not pay any heed to the advise of other persons sitting in the vehicle. The result was that the vehicle when reached near village Gagsina, it met with an accident because Ved Pal, respondent No. 2, the driver due to rash and negligent driving could not control the vehicle and as such the same turned turtle. As a result, the accident occurred in which Joginder Singh and others received multiple injuries on various parts of their bodies. Joginder injured got treatment from Civil Hospital, Karnal and remained admitted for a long period there. On account of the mental and physical agony as well as the financial losses suffered by the petitioner, he claimed compensation to the tune of Two lacs. 3. Fakkar Singh, father of Babli deceased claimed compensation in a claim petition No. 94 of 91, to the tune of Rs. Four Lacs on account of the death of Babli, his son which occurred due to the injuries received by him (Babli) in the aforesaid accident. According to the claimant, the deceased was about 18 years old and was working as an agricultural labourer and earning Rs. 1500/- p.m. It has been alleged that the petitioner was fully dependent upon the deceased and so prayed that the amount of compensation as prayed for be given because of the physical and mental agony as well as the financial loss suffered by the claimant. FAO No. 2011 of 1995 4 4. Angoori Devi injured/claimant filed claim petition No. 95 of 91 and prayed that she be paid compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the injuries received by her in the accident referred to above. She was also travelling alongwith others in four wheeler No. HNK-3997 on the date of accident. She has alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and caused the accident in question. It has been averred that the injured/claimant received serious/grievous injuries on her various parts of body. She got treatment from General Hospital, Karnal and spent a lot of amount on her treatment. Since the petitioner has suffered physically, mentally and financially, she prayed that she be allowed the compensation as prayed for. 5. Smt. Indra in claim petition No. 96 of 91 prayed that she be allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. Two Lacs on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident in question. She also remained in hospital for many days and spent a lot of amount on her treatment.” Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Vide impugned award, the learned Tribunal allowed compensation as under:- “ 1) MACT Case No. 93 of 91, titled Joginder Singh Vs. Siri Ram etc. - To the tune of Rs. 15,000/- FAO No. 2011 of 1995 5 2) MACT Case No. 94 of 91, titled Fakkar Singh Vs. Siri Ram etc. - To the tune of Rs. 96,000/- 3) MACT Case No. 95 of 91, titled Angoori Devi Vs. Siri Ram etc. - To the tune of Rs. 20,000/- 4) MACT Case No. 96 of 91, titled Indra Vs. Siri Ram etc. - To the tune of Rs. 20,000/-” Respondents No. 1 and 2 were held liable for payment of compensation, jointly and severally, whereas, the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability to pay compensation. Claimants being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have filed the present four appeals, mentioned above, seeking enhancement of compensation. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 despite service. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the amount of compensation, vide impugned award, was on the lesser side. The injured appellants had remained admitted in the hospital for three months and the appellants-Angoori Devi and Joginder Singh had suffered permanent disability, whereas, appellant-Indra suffered temporary disability. However, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal does not commensurate with disability suffered by the said appellants. Appellant-Fakkar Singh was the father of the deceased-Babli. Only a sum of Rs. 96,000/- has been awarded as compensation to him by taking the salary of deceased @ Rs.750/- per month. The same was also liable to be enhanced. FAO No. 2011 of 1995 6 Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed on record a copy of the statement of Dr. Ved Parkash Gupta (PW1). A perusal of the same reveals that Joginder Singh had suffered disability of 8% and a certificate in this regard was Exhibit PA; Angoori Devi had suffered disability of 18% and a certificate in this regard was Exhibit PB and Indro Devi had suffered disability of 15%, which was temporary in nature, and a certificate in this regard was Exhibit PC. So far as appellant-Joginder Singh is concerned, he had suffered disability to the extent of 8% and had remained admitted in the Civil hospital, Karnal for three months. He had suffered fracture of his left leg. Dr.Ved Parkash Gupta (PW1), in his cross-examination, has deposed that on examination of Joginder singh, Board found that there was slight deformity in the foot. On x-ray, it was found that there was mal united fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th metatarsal bones. Appellant has not proved any bill regarding his treatment on record. He must have suffered physical pain and mental agony on account of injuries suffered by him and must have spent some amount on his treatment and stay in the hospital for three months. He will also suffer loss of amenities of life on account of disability suffered by him. The amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded to him by the learned Tribunal is highly inadequate. Keeping in view the disability and the period of admission of the appellant-Joginder Singh in the hospital, it would be just and fair to award Rs.61,000/- as compensation to him, on all counts. So far as appellant-Angoori Devi is concerned, she also remained admitted in the Civil Hospital, Karnal for three months. She has suffered disability to the extent of 18%. Dr. Ved Parkash Gupta (PW1) in his cross- FAO No. 2011 of 1995 7 examination deposed that lower limb of Angoori Devi was shortened by half an inch. There was mal united fracture of both bones of left leg. Appellant-Angoori Devi has not proved on record the medical bills. She must have suffered physical pain and mental agony on account of injuries suffered by her and must have spent some amount on her treatment and stay in the hospital for three months. She will also suffer loss of amenities of life on account of disability suffered by her. The amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded to her by the learned Tribunal is highly inadequate. Keeping in view the disability and the period of admission of the appellant-Angoori Devi in the hospital, it would be just and fair to award Rs.81,000/- as compensation to her, on all counts. So far as the case of appellant-Indra is concerned, she has remained admitted in the Civil Hospital, Karnal for three months. She has suffered temporary disability to the extent of 15%. She has also not proved on record the medical bills. Appellant must have suffered physical pain and mental agony on account of injuries suffered by her although as per Dr. Ved Parkash Gupta (PW1), her disability would come to 0% with the passage of time yet she would suffer till it actually comes to 0% disability. Till then she will also suffer loss of amenities of life. Accordingly, keeping in view her disability and her period of admission in hospital, it would be just and fair to award Rs. 65,000/- as compensation to her, on all counts. The case of appellant-Fakkar relates to claim of compensation on account of death of his unmarried son, aged 20 years in the accident in question. . The accident in question had taken place in the year 1991. The amount of compensation of Rs. 96,000/- awarded to him by the learned Tribunal seems to be just and fair in view of the facts and circumstances of FAO No. 2011 of 1995 8 the case and calls for no interference. Accordingly, F.A.O. No. 2012 of 1995 (Fakkar Singh vs. Siri Ram etc.) is dismissed. F.A.O. No. 2011 of 1995 (Joginder Singh vs. Siri Ram etc.); F.A.O. No. 2013 of 1995 (Smt. Indra vs. Siri Ram etc.) and FAO No. 2014 of 1995 (Smt. Angoori Devi vs. Siri Ram etc.) are allowed. The compensation amount of appellant-Joginder Singh is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.61,000/-; the compensation amount of appellant-Indra is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 65,000/- and the compensation amount of appellant-Angrooi Devi is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.81,000/-. No order as to costs. (Sabina) Judge December 08, 2008 arya