F.A.O.No.2391 of 1999 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.2391 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision 22.07.2009 Kuldeep Singh Yadav ......Appellant VERSUS Dev Dutt and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the respondent-Insurance Co. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Assailed in this appeal is the award dated 02.06.1999, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') whereby it awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,19,868/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum to the appellant, on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident and against the respondents jointly and severally. On 22.05.1998, the injured-appellant alongwith his friend was coming in his car bearing Registration No.DL-9C-6284 from Indira Gandhi International Airport New Delhi to Gurgaon at a moderate speed. When he reached in front of the main gate of Maruti Udyog Gurgaon, then respondent No.1 while driving truck bearing registration No.HR-30-3725 rashly and negligently hit the car of the appellant. Resultantly, he received F.A.O.No.2391 of 1999 (O&M) 2 grievous injuries and his car was badly damaged. Thus, he sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. The claim petition was contested by the respondents including respondent No.3-insurer of the offending truck bearing registration No.HR-30-3725. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in the accident which took place on 22.05.1998 due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR-30-3725 by respondent No.1 ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR 4. Relief. After appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal while holding that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the driver was holding a valid driving licence held all the respondents including respondent No.1 as liable and awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,19,868/-. Hence this appeal for enhancement has been filed. According to PW1 Dr.Akhlaq Ahmad, the appellant suffered 75% disability on account of the fracture in his spine at D4 and D5 and proved his disability certificate Ex.P1. According to him, the lower portion of the body of the appellant has been completely paralysed. He had to spend Rs.62,000/- to Rs.63,000/- and was operated upon for the said F.A.O.No.2391 of 1999 (O&M) 3 injuries. He is still under treatment. It has also come in evidence that the appellant was drawing a salary of Rs.10,290/- per month. He also deposited medical bills of Rs.1,16,000/- to his company for reimbursement. It has also been submitted that appellant had to engage a private servant to whom he has been paying Rs.1500/- per month. PW4 Ram Kishan stated that he has been engaged for the purpose of his exercise from 15.06.1998 and has been charging Rs.100/- per visit. He has proved the certificates Ex.P2 to P4. With regard to treatment, PW5 Raj Kumar has stated that Kuldip Yadav remained admitted in Sehgal Neurological Research Institute, Delhi and they charged Rs.82,015/- and issued bills Ex.P5 to Ex.P17. PW8 Sanjiv Kumar has stated that appellant was drawing a salary of Rs.11,689/- per month and he took Rs.80,000/- as advance from his office and he is now on leave without pay since August 1998. PW9 Rajesh Kumar stated that he is getting salary of Rs.1500/- per month and he is being paid Rs.150/- per day for bringing special diet. While examining the award, passed by the Tribunal, the appellant claimed Rs.75,000/- for 75% disability, Rs.6600/-, 4800 and Rs.10,000/- which have been charged on account of the Physiotherapy. But these amounts were declined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,868/- on account of medical expenses, Rs.9,000/- as salary to the servant and Rs.10,000/- for special diet. To my mind, the Tribunal has not even calculated the compensation as per the evidence led by the appellant. Rajesh Kumar PW9 while appearing in the witness box has specifically stated that he has been receiving Rs.1500/- per month being attendant but the Tribunal observed F.A.O.No.2391 of 1999 (O&M) 4 that he was not being paid more than Rs.750/- per month. Nowadays even a daily wager does not receive less than Rs.100/- per day. To pay Rs.1500/- per month to an attendant was not on the higher side. Some amount should have been awarded on account of the salary to be paid to the attendant as the appellant had been permanently crippled due to complete paralysis of the area below the hips. Thus, it would not be inappropriate to pay Rs.30,000/- on account of the salary to the attendant. PW5 Raj Kumar has stated that Neurological Research Institute, Delhi charged Rs.82,015/- and issued the bills Ex.P5 to P17. In addition to it nothing has been added by the Tribunal for his future treatment. However, it only awarded a sum of Rs.25,868/- on account of the medical expenses which to my mind are too meagre to compensate the payment. Actually, the appellant should have been awarded Rs.1,25,000/- on account of medical treatment in the hospitals as well as for future treatment. The appellant remained admitted in the hospitals from the date of accident and continued having rounds of the hospitals and doctors for his treatment, therefore, he must have to pay for the transportation but the Tribunal did not pay anything to the appellant on account of any past or future transportation. As such, the compensation on this head should have been at least Rs.30,000/-. PW9 Rajesh Kumar stated that he is being paid Rs.150/- per day for bringing special diet for the appellant. However, the Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of special diet which to my mind is too meagre. He should have been paid Rs.35,000/- on this head. He was also not awarded anything on account of the loss of income. It has come in evidence that he was drawing a salary of Rs.10,290/- and now he is without pay since the date of accident. Thus, the F.A.O.No.2391 of 1999 (O&M) 5 appellant should have been paid Rs.1,50,000/- on account of loss of income. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.75,000/- for disability which is too meagre. Thus, the compensation on this head should have been at least Rs.1,50,000/-. As such, the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,20,000/- on account of compensation. Resultantly, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned award is modified by enhancing compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- over and above the award amount. However, the appellant would also be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 22.07.2009 mamta-II