In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 1976 of 2009 Date of decision: July 27, 2009 Sultan Singh .. Appellant Vs. Shiv Lal and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J Notice of motion. On the asking of the court, Mr. V.K. Garg, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2. Service of the respondent No.1 is dispensed with. This appeal for enhancement is directed against the award dated 12.1.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby, Sultan Singh claimant-appellant (herein referred as 'the appellant') was awarded a sum of Rs.42450/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident. The respondents have neither challenged the negligence of the driver nor their liability. At the same time, the appellant has challenged the adequacy of the compensation. In this regard the medical evidence needs to be noticed. Dr. G.S. Narwal (PW2) was the member of the Disability Board constituted for assessing the disability of the appellant. He proved the disability certificate Ex.P1 in order to state that the appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 7% qua his joint. observed that there was 7% disability vide certificate Ex.P1. However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.7000/- instead of awarding Rs.14000/- on this head. Nothing was awarded on account of payment to the attendant and future treatment. As such, the appellant is entitled to the following compensation :- F.A.O. No. 1976 of 2009 -2- *** 1. Disability qua hip joint Rs.14000/- 2. Medical Bills Rs.20450/- 3. Mental pain and sufferings, hospitalization transportation and special diet Rs.15,000/- 4. Attendant and future treatment Rs.6,000/- Total Rs.55450/- As such, while rounding off, the total compensation for which the appellant is entitled comes to Rs.55,000/- which the respondents are liable to pay. They are also entitled to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization on the enhanced amount. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. July 27, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge