FAO No. 3613 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3613 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.11.2011 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Randhir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Ajay Vijarariya, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company- appellant assailing the award dated 3.11.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar vide which the injured-respondent No.1 was awarded an amount of ` 2,39,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per the disability certificate, injured -appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% and therefore, in view of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , the amount awarded i.e. ` 1,25,000/- is not sustainable. However, from the perusal of the record, it appears that the said amount of compensation is not only FAO No. 3613 of 2011 2 towards the permanent disability but also for future loss of income as well. The claimant, though is 70 years of age but is the sole bread earner for the family, there being no other male member. Therefore, keeping in view the said fact, this Court feels that no ground is made out to reduce the amount awarded towards permanent disability and future loss of income. The next contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that an amount of ` 40,000/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of referring Exs.P14 and P-15, which are medical record, but in these exhibits no amount of expenses incurred has been mentioned. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1 stated that the claimant-injured incurred post operative expenses. He has referred to the discharge summary Ex.P15 in this context. From the perusal of Ex.P15, it is made out that post operative care has been advised to the injured by the doctor. The factum of receiving grievous injuries in the accident is not disputed. Besides, there is a specific statement of the doctor that permanent disability suffered by the claimant shall interfere with the proper enjoyment of his life. Keeping in view the above, even if the amount is marginally on the higher side, this Court is not inclined to reduce the same. As such, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 3.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE