F.A.O. No.422 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** F.A.O. No.422 of 2008 Date of Decision:20.10.2008. Ram Parshad .....Appellant Vs. Subrati and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. G.K. Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon vide his award dated 8.5.2007. The brief facts are that on 23.5.2004 Ram Parshad, Abdul Karim, Salim, Kayum, Sheru and few others were travelling in a four wheeler bearing registration No.DL-ILD-6186 while returning to their village Utawar after attending the marriage party of Wahid from School Dandi Haz Committee, Delhi. This vehicle was loaded with dowry articles given at the time of marriage. It was being driven by Subrati rashly and negligently. The occupants asked over and again to subrati to drive the vehicle carefully. Around 8:00 p.m., when this vehicle reached a little ahead of Village Bhagola on Palwal Utawar road, Subrati lost control over the vehicle, which turned turtle after having dashed against the trees. As a result of its impact, Ram Parshad- claimant along with other occupants sustained injuries on their respective bodies. The dowry articles got completely damaged. The accident took place due to rash and negligent F.A.O. No.422 of 2008 -2- driving of Subrati. A case was got registered under Sections 279/337/338/427 of IPC on 23.5.2004 at Police Station, Sadar Palwal vide FIR No.288. The claimant was removed to the General Hospital, Palwal and thereafter he also underwent treatment in some other hospitals. He spent a sum of Rs.70,000/- on the purchase of medicines including hospital charges. In their joint written statement, respondents No.1 and 2 denied the accident having taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. As alleged, the same occurred due to negligence of the claimant himself while boarding the vehicle in question. In its written statement, the respondent- Company has inter-alia pleaded that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition; that the respondent No.1 did not have the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and he violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that the offending vehicle was a goods carrier and gratuitous passengers were not covered under the insurance policy. Lastly, it has been prayed that the petition may be dismissed. The following issues are framed:- 1. Whether accident in question was caused by respondent No.1 by driving four wheeler vehicle bearing registration No.DL-ILD-6186 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident and if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? OPR F.A.O. No.422 of 2008 -3- 4. Whether respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR 5. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal vide his award dated 8.5.2007 awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual realisation of this amount with a direction to the respondents to pay the same jointly and severally. Feeling aggrieved with the alleged inadequacy of compensation amount, this appeal has been preferred by Ram Parshad, appellant. I have heard Mr. G.K. Chawla, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Tribunal with due care and circumspection. Mr. Chawla stressing his every nerve maintained with great eloquence that as is borne out from the award, the appellant had sustained fracture injuries on his right side forehead, right thigh, right pelvis, right hip joint which have been reflected in Ex.PW1/1, the copy of Medico Legal Report but without taking into consideration these injuries, a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded, which is thus liable to be enhanced. I regret my inability to be one with Mr. Chawla for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Of course, the MLR has been exhibited but the learned Tribunal in paragraph No.10 of the award has observed that “Copy of MLR shows that the petitioner sustained 3 injuries on his body. Injuries sustained by the petitioner do not appear to be so serious. No X-ray report F.A.O. No.422 of 2008 -4- has been adduced to prove fracture injuries. Mark P7 is the treatment slip of General Hospital, Palwal. Mark P1 to P6 are the bills regarding purchase of medicines. These bills show that an amount of Rs.14,800/- was spent for purchasing medicines by the petitioner. Except statement of the claimant, no other person has been examined to prove copy of MLR and bills regarding purchase of medicines.” These observations are pointer towards the fact that the appellant did not take the pains to produce and prove X-ray reports. Only these reports would have established as to whether or not he suffered fractures. The disability was to be assessed on their basis. The record is quite barren to show that any certificate regarding disability of the appellant was issued by the Civil Surgeon. In the absence of such certificate, it is very difficult to say as to whether or not the appellant had suffered any permanent disability. To add further to it, the doctor who medico legally examined the claimant has also not been examined. In the absence of material evidence, it would be going too far to say that the awarded amount of compensation is on the lower side. The amount of Rs.14,800/- spent by the appellant on the purchase of medicines etc., has been awarded to him. In view of the above discussion, apparently there is no scope of enhancement in the amount awarded on account of compensation. Sequelly, this appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed in limine. October 20, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No