FAO No.6571 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6571 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 20.12.2011 Rishi Pal and another .... Petitioners Versus Satpal and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar Khubber, Advocate, for the appellants. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.: (Oral) The owner and the driver of the vehicle (truck bearing Registration No.HR46-A-0385) have filed the present appeal impugning the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhari dated 01.06.2011 whereby the claimant-Satpal, who sustained injuries in a vehicular accident, has been awarded a compensation of Rs.3,71,500/- under various heads. 2. Briefly the facts may be noticed. The claimant-Satpal was employed with Mehta Transport at Yamuna Nagar and was coming back to Yamuna Nagar along with the goods in the truck on August 28, 2005. At about 3/3.30 a.m., when the truck bearing Registration No.HR46-A-0385, driven by Sanjeev Kumar-appellant No.2 reached near Madhuban Police Academy, Madhuban, it met with an accident with a stationary truck bearing Registration FAO No.6571 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: No.HR37-A-0276 which was parked on the katcha berm. The claimant-Satpal sustained injuries in the accident. He filed a claim petition which was contested by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether accident took place on 28.08.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Registration No.HR46-A-0385 or vehicle bearing Registration No.HR37-A-0276 by their respective drivers, wherein petitioner sustained injuries on his person ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom for the injuries suffered by him? OPP 3. Whether petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether terms and conditions of insurance policy pertaining to vehicle bearing Registration No.HR46-A-0385 were violated and therefore, respondent No.3 stood absolved of its liability ? OPR-3 5. Whether petitioner has no cause of action ? OPR-3 6. Whether claim is exaggerated ? OPR-3 7. Relief. 3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident FAO No.6571 of 2011 (O & M) ::3:: took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR46-A-0385 being owned and driven by the appellants. 4. On consideration of the matter, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation: 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 50,000/- 2. Loss of earnings : Rs. 40,500/- 3. Special diet + attendant : Rs. 30,000/- 4. Transportation charges : Rs. 10,000/- 5. Medical bills : Rs. 41,000/- 6. Disability : Rs.2,00,000/- 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal had erred in awarding the aforesaid compensation under various heads in the absence of any cogent evidence and moreover the amount awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the abovesaid contentions. 7. The Tribunal while adjudicating issue No.1 concluded that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-46A-0385 by its driver Sanjeev Kumar alias Sanju son of Raj Pal. The Tribunal under issue No.2 bifurcated compensation under various heads as noticed above. 8. Adverting to the quantum of compensation, a perusal of the amount awarded to the claimant-Satpal shows that it was granted under various heads. Taking up the headings relating to pain and sufferings and also disability, the claimant-Satpal produced evidence FAO No.6571 of 2011 (O & M) ::4:: to establish the injuries and sufferings undergone by him. The Tribunal concluded that he suffered crush injury of right upper limb and remained admitted in PGI from 28.08.2005 to 22.09.2005. Operation had to be performed and plaster was applied for fracture of right humerus and fracture of both right forearm. He had also suffered 80% permanent disability as per disability certificate (Ex.P-1). The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.2,00,000/- on account of disability. 9. Similarly, as the claimant-Satpal remained hospitalised from 28.08.2005 to 22.09.2005 as per bed head ticket and discharge card Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-4/A and remained under treatment of Dr. Mahavir Goel, he had been held entitled to Rs.40,500/- for loss of earnings. 10. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence produced by the claimant had further arrived at a conclusion that the claimant- Satpal was entitled to an amount of Rs.30,000/- for special diet plus attendant charges; Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges and Rs.41,000/- as medical bills. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to substantiate his plea as has been sought to be canvassed by him. Under the circumstances, the award of compensation cannot be held to be either without evidence or excessive in any manner. 12. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. It stands dismissed accordingly. 13. However, the Registry is directed to remit the sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants with the Cash Branch of this FAO No.6571 of 2011 (O & M) ::5:: Court to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhari, to be disbursed to the claimants by the Tribunal. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 20, 2011 sukhpreet FAO No.6571 of 2011 (O & M) ::6::