FAO No.6422 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6422 of 2010 Date of decision:25.8.2011 Deepak ...Appellant Versus Anil Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.R.S.Budhwar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.R.S.Dhull, Advocate, for respondent No.3. -.- JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J. The present appeal is directed against the award dated 16.7.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Karnal, (for short `the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition preferred by the appellant was partly accepted. The case set up by the claimant/appellant is that on 17.12.2008 at about 6.30 p.m., when he was going towards his village Chogwan on a motorcycle, a truck bearing registration No.HR-46-A 4625, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from village Garbhi Birbakl side and struck against his motorcycle due to which, he fell down on the road and received multiple and grievous injuries on various part of his body. The claimant/appellant was taken to the General Hospital, Karnal, he was further referred to the PGIMER Chandigarh, where he remained FAO No.6422 of 2010 2 admitted from 18.12.2008 to 22.12.2008. The claimant preferred the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of `10 lacs. However, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of `89,448/- on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident in question. Hence, the present appeal is for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the injured was removed to the hospital number of times for post surgery check up but no amount has been granted towards Transportation. He has further submitted that the compensation towards the head `Attendant' as well as the tentative costs of `10,000/- which would be required for removal of implants done during the surgery, has not been taken care of by the learned Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that no bill pertaining to transportation was submitted by the appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file as well as impugned award. Admittedly, the injured/claimant was operated upon and was advised to visit the hospital for post operative care. If no receipt could be produced for transportation, the insurer cannot be absolved of its liability completely for the reason that the receipts were produced when the facts themselves reveal that the claimant/appellant was called to the hospital for follow up treatment, the claimant must have incurred some expenses on account of transportation. It is proved on record that the appellant remained bed-ridden for more than six months. FAO No.6422 of 2010 3 Keeping in view the above facts, this Court feels that the compensation granted deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly this Court award to the claimant-appellant a sum of `5,000/- towards transportation, `18,000/- towards the attendant charges and further `10,000/- for removal of the implant as noticed by the Dr.P.K.Soni, who appeard as PW1 to the claimant/appellant over and above, which would meet the ends of justice. The enhanced amount shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally in the manner indicated by the learned Tribunal within a period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of this period, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7½% per annum. In view of above, the impugned award dated 16.7.2010 is modified to the extent indicated above. 25.8.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE