FAO No.1427 of 2002(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1427 of 2002 (O&M) Kishan Chand ... Appellant VERSUS Khurshid and others ... Respondents FAO No.1428 of 2002 (O&M) Bahadur Khan ... Appellant VERSUS Khurshid and others ... Respondents and FAO No.1429 of 2002 (O&M) Ali Khan ... Appellant VERSUS Khurshid and others ... Respondents Decided on : August 05, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellant – claimants. Mr.Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Mr.Neeraj Khanna, and Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocates for respondent – New India Assurance Company Ltd. FAO No.1427 of 2002(O&M) [ 2 ] A.N.JINDAL, J.- This judgment shall dispose of three appeals i.e. FAO Nos.1427, 1428 and 1429 of 2002 filed by the claimants against the award dated 4.10.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, whereby, three claim petitions arising out of an accident were decided. There were four claimants, who were awarded compensation as under:- 1. Kishan Chand - Rs.65,000/- 2. Bahadur Khan - Rs.40,000/- 3. Ruddar @ Rojdar - Rs.2,83,000/- 4. Ali Khan - Rs.50,000/- Now, except Ruddar @ Rojdar, all other three claimants have sought enhancement of compensation by way of filing these appeals. It would be pertinent to mention here that though claimant Kishan Chand in his claim petition impleaded both the insurance companies i.e. New India Insurance Company Limited as also the United India Insurance Company Limited, with whom the offending Jeep bearing Reg.No.DL-1CR-2405 was insured. However, other claimants impleaded only the United India Insurance Company Limited as insurer of the offending vehicle. It appears that claimants Bahadur Khan, Ruddar alias Rojdar and Khurshid preferred a claim petition against United India Insurance Company only, for the injuries suffered by them. Thus, the claim of these claimants has been rightly passed against this Company only. It is contended that claimant Kishan Chand was aged 36 years at the time of accident and he suffered 45% disability and had to remain admitted in the hospital for 41 days. Dr.Akhlaq Ahmad (PW1), who FAO No.1427 of 2002(O&M) [ 3 ] proved the permanent disability certificate (Ex.PA) stated that claimant Kishan Chand was examined by the Medical Board, of which he was also a member. He further stated that the claimant is suffering with moderate restriction of movement of his right elbow along with moderate restriction of movement of his right wrist along with rigidity of muscles of all the fingers of his hand. Thus, the doctor observed this disability as 45% of the right arm. Counsel for the claimant Kishan Chand (in FAO No.1427 of 2002) has also urged that the claimant was earning Rs.4800/- per month and he spent Rs.70,000/- on his medical treatment. However, the medical bills, receipts, etc. (Ex.P38 to P55) worth Rs.10,079.75 paise only were proved on the record. It may further be mentioned that he remained admitted in three different hospitals for 41 days. However, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation under different heads:- 1. Medical treatment expenses Rs.15,000/- 2. Loss of income due to leave from the work Rs.11,000/- 3.Attendant's expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4.Special diet expenses Rs. 4,000/- 5.Transportation Expenses Rs. 5,000/- 6.Physical pain and mental agony and suffering with permanent disability Rs.25,000/- ----------------------- TOTAL EXPENSES Rs.65,000/- With utmost regard to the disability certificate (Ex.PA) issued FAO No.1427 of 2002(O&M) [ 4 ] by the Board of Doctors, no expert of prudent knowledge will hold a person disable to such an extent, only on account of some fractures in fore-arm or there is some restriction in the movement of fingers. It has also come in evidence that he was cured of the fractures. The Tribunal has compensated him for expenses on the treatment. Though, he had not suffered any loss of income as medical leave for 45 days must have been granted by his Department, yet no comments need to be made upon the Tribunal, who granted him Rs.11,000/- for loss of income. Thus, the compensation already awarded adequately to claimant Kishan Chand does not suggest interference. As regards claimant Ali Khan (in FAO No.1429 of 2002), he himself appeared as PW1 and testified that he remained admitted in the Hospital for 15/16 days and also took follow up medical treatment for six months, but still he suffered from 30% permanent disability. His leg remained under plaster for couple of months and he had to spend 50,000/- to 60,000/- on his treatment. He further deposed that he had been earning Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- per month. In order to prove his version, he also examined Dr.Akhlaq Ahmad (PW2), who proved that the claimant Ali Khan had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. The doctor stated that there was mild restriction of movement at the right hip, right knee and right ankle, and that claimant Ali Khan remained admitted for 15/16 days. Mild restriction of movement of hip, right knee and right ankle could hardly be computed as disability to the extent of 30%. it appears that the Board of Doctors did not take proper eye view of the facts and ignored to examine FAO No.1427 of 2002(O&M) [ 5 ] the parameters for forming the bodily disability, in order to help the claimant. The Tribunal after taking into account the treatment at Safdarjung Hospital for 15/16 days and other aspects of the case, awarded lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. It is pertinent to mention that no evidence was brought on record to prove the medical expenses or to prove the fact that the claimant actually spent something on attendant, special diet or transportation. In such circumstances, the view formed by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable qua awarding of the compensation to Ali Khan. Now coming to the case of claimant Bahadur Khan (in FAO No.1428 of 2002), he received injuries on his left shoulder and remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Gurgaon for 15 days. It is alleged that he spent Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- on medical treatment. He has also proved the medico legal report (Ex.P5) supporting the injuries on his person in a roadside accident. Admittedly, he was 43 years old at the time of accident and though, there are medical bills worth Rs.337/-, but the Tribunal on guess work, as there was no evidence with regard to the payment of medical expenses on his treatment, assessed Rs.10,000/- as medical expenses. The MLR proved fractures in his chest and left shoulder and the X-ray report disclosed that he was having fractures in 8th, 9th and 10th ribs of right side, besides fracture in his left shoulder. Since the claimant Bahadur Khan had been working as labourer and due to grievous injuries in the ribs of right side as also the fracture in the left shoulder, he could not attend his work for about seven months, the Tribunal rightly assessed that he might not have FAO No.1427 of 2002(O&M) [ 6 ] attended his work for about seven months. In this way, while assessing Rs.10,000/- as medical expenses; Rs.14,000/- as loss of income; Rs.5,000/- for attendant's expenses, special diet and transportation charges; and Rs.10,000/- on account of the physical pain and mental agony, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to claimant Bahadur Khan. However, taking into consideration the grievous injuries suffered by him in 8th, 9th and 10th rib, some amount of compensation is also required for future treatment. As such, the compensation awarded to Bahadur Khan is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- In view of the above discussion, FAO No.1427 of 2002 filed by claimant Kishan Chand and FAO No.1429 of 2002 filed by claimant Ali Khan are dismissed, while FAO No.1428 of 2002 filed by claimant Bahadur Khan is partly accepted and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till realisation of the award amount. However, the remaining terms of the award shall remain intact. August 05, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE