FAO No. 2340 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 2340 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.2.2010 Wazir Singh ... Appellant vs Rakesh Kumar Punia and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. CM No. 11568/CII/2009 The application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No. 2340/2009 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). The brief facts of the case are that on 11.7.2004, Wazir Singh appellant and Somveer Singh were coming from Narnaund to their Village Mada in Tractor Trolley bearing registration No. HR-21A-4189 after purchasing seeds and khal binola. Somveer was driving the tractor. When they had covered a distance of about 2 km from Narnaund towards their village, a truck bearing registration no. HR-38-E-2085, driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from Jind side and struck the tractor from behind. As a result of which, the tractor along with trolley fell into pits by the side of the road. Due to this impact, Wazir Singh and Somveer Singh received multiple injuries. The tractor and trolley was also damaged badly. The appellant was brought to Metro Hospital, Hisar, where he remained admitted upto 24.7.2004. Criminal case was also registered. The claimant filed petition before the learned Tribunal which was allowed. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,800/- was assessed to be payable to the appellant. However, dissatisfied with the award of the learned Tribunal, the appellant/ claimant is in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the compensation. It has awarded just Rs. 1,00,800/- as total compensation. The appellant had spent Rs. 2 lacs on his treatment till now and FAO No. 2340 of 2009 -2- requires further treatment. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,500/- on account of transportation charges whereas the appellant spent Rs. 50,000/- on transportation for follow up treatment. Under the other heads also, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not just and fair and deserves to be increased. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book. A perusal of the award of the learned Tribunal shows that the claimant has not proved on record his income and in the absence of that the Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs. 3,000/- and on that basis it has granted compensation. As the claimant remained hospitalised for a period of 13 days and for about three months after discharge remained under treatment, compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was granted to him for pain and sufferings and Rs. 9,000/- on account of loss of income. Keeping in view the fact that the claimant remained hospitalised and after discharge might have been looked after by some, a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was also granted under the head attendant charges and Rs. 3,600/- for special diet. As per deposition of PW16 Dr. Reena Jain, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hisar, the claimant suffered 8% disability and on account of that a sum of Rs. 16,000/- was awarded to him. The claimant produced medical bills amounting to Rs. 40,220/- and the same amount has been awarded to him. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant spent Rs. 50,000/- on transportation is not based on any documentary evidence. The evidence produced by him in this regard rightly did not find favour with the learned Tribunal as the same was not trust worthy. Rs. 2,500/- awarded on account of transportation charges cannot be said to be on lower side in the absence of supporting evidence. In total, compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,800/- has been given to the appellant which, in my opinion, is just and fair and no further enhancement is called for. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. 3.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge