FAO No. 3510 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3510 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.03.2010 Lalti Devi ....Appellant Versus Manvinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate, for the appellant. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the claimant, is directed against the award dated 16.2.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was allowed and she was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). The learned Tribunal with regard to the compensation payable to the appellant, recorded the following finding: - “So far as the remaining injured-claimant-Ms. Lalti Devi is concerned, no tangible injury or the injury worth its name has been proved to be suffered by her on the record of the file. In this regard, in Ex.P5, which is OPD card of the injured-claimant-Ms. Lalti Devi it has been clearly mentioned that MLC on her person had not been done as she was only an attendant of the other patient i.e. her husband claimant-Rama. Therefore, no compensation on account of any alleged physical injury can be awarded to her. FAO No. 3510 of 2009 -2- However, it has to be held that on account of having undergone the trauma of suffering an accident alongwith her husband, the claimant-Ms. Lalti Devi was bound to suffer mental shock/pain etc. Therefore, on account of non-pecuniary damages which included damages for mental shock/pain as well as damages for inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and mental stress etc., this court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the claimant-Ms. Lalti Devi is allowed the amount of Rs.15,000/- in total on account of aforesaid non-pecuniary damages.” In view of the finding recorded above, the amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) cannot be said to be inadequate, which may call for any interference by this Court in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 26, 2010 R.S.