IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F. A. O. No. 1934 of 2006 Date of Decision: December 12, 2008 Mohinder Singh ...........Appellant Versus Nikhil and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.J.C.Malik,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajnish Malhotra.Advocate for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. * * * Sabina, J. This is an appeal filed against the award dated 7.1.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal). The case of the claimant in brief is that on 9.7.2004, he was going towards Police station City Panipat from S.P. Office, Panipat in connection with night-patrolling. When he was got down from an Auto- rickshaw in front of Police station, a motor cycle bearing No. HR06J-5564 driven by Nikhil (respondent No.1 ) in a rash and negligent manner came from the wrong side and struck against him. As a result of this, claimant suffered multiple injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the F. A. O. No.1934 of 2006 -2- parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- "1. Whether the motor-vehicular accident which took place on 9.7.2004 was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR06J-5564 by respondent No.1 Nikhil and in which claimant Mohinder Singh sutained injuries, If so, its effect? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to receive any amount of compensation. How much and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the respondent no.1, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR 4. Relief” Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal has allowed Rs. 1,95,011/- as compensation to the claimant. By way of this appeal, claimant has sought enhancement of the amount of compensation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 15%. Although the claimant alleged that he spent Rs.59150/- towards transportation expenses but the learned Tribunal allowed Rs. 35,000/- towards transportation expenses to the claimant as the witness examined by the claimant to prove the transportation expenses was not believed by the learned Tribunal. Ved Pal (PW13) had failed to prove any registration certificate of the vehicle nor any driving licence to drive the same. It was admitted by the said witness that the receipts had been scribed by his sons Ashok and Pardeep but they were not examined. He also admitted that the F. A. O. No.1934 of 2006 -3- claimant was his neighbour. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal had rightly not relied upon the testimony of Ved Pal (PW13). Claimants also proved on record the medical bills and in this regard, learned Tribunal rightly allowed Rs. 32609/- to the claimants as medical expenses. A sum of Rs. 2402/- were further allowed to the claimant towards the Misc. expenses regarding which bills were placed on record. Claimant was allowed Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and special diet. Claimant was allowed Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of salary during the period of the hospitalisation and rest although the claimant has failed to prove on record that during the said period he was on leave without pay. Claimant was allowed Rs.15,000/- on account of disability. It has also been noticed by the learned Tribunal that the claimant had got a promotion and as per the disability certificate produced on record, it was evident that the disability was likely to decrease with the passage of time. Claimant had failed to prove that the disability suffered by him was permanent in nature. Keeping in view the totality of the above mentioned facts in mind, the amount of compensation allowed by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and calls for no interference. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Sabina) December 12, 2008 Judge arya