CIVIL APPEAL 532 of 2001 on 20 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. No. 532 of 2001Date of Decision : April 21, 2009

Baghel Singh

Raj Kumar and others

Versus

.....Appellant

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :Mr. Sourav Garg, Advocate forMr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocatefor the appellant.

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3.

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

The claimant has preferred the present appeal against theaward dated 20.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Hoshiarpur and has prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensationfor the injuries received by him in a motor vehicular accident. Videimpugned award, learned Tribunal awarded him an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation.

On account of the rash and negligent driving of jeep No. PCR-6944 by respondent No.1, the appellant received injuries as the jeep struckagainst the motor cycle which the appellant and his son were riding. Theappellant was referred to DMC, Ludhiana in a serious condition. Accordingto the appellant, he was 50 years of age at the time of the accident andworking as an insurance agent with M/s New India Assurance Company and

-2-

drawing monthly income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, theappellant had sought an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing theevidence, learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the appellant wasentitled to receive Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.20,000/- astransportation charges and Rs.2,00,000/- for the pain and suffering.Accordingly, he was awarded a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- ascompensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on accountof the injuries received by him as a result of rash and negligent driving byrespondent No.1, the appellant is unable to take care of himself. Thepetitioner is still receiving regular treatment and incurring huge amounts onthe medicine with a hope that he may regain his consciousness but to noavail.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company hassubmitted that though the appellant received serious injuries and as a resultthereof, his memory has been impaired, yet the possibility could not be ruledout if he could recover altogether. Therefore, it is not a fit case forenhancement of the amount of compensation.

Though, Dr. Munish Kumar Goyal, AW5 did state in his cross-examination that possibility could not be ruled out of the appellantrecovering 100% yet as a period of one year had already elapsed, therefore,chances of 100% recovery were quite less. The wife of the appellant hadstepped into the witness box as AW6 and testified about the condition of herhusband by submitting affidavit AW6/A. She described therein that on F.A.O. No. 532 of 2001

account of the injuries, the appellant had lost his balance of mind and hismemory had weakened. The appellant was not in a position to think whatwas good or bad for him and he was being looked after by her. Because ofhis condition, he could not step into witness box to make a statement aboutall these facts.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, the amountof Rs.2,00,000/- awarded to the appellant for loss of income and for the painand suffering is highly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced toRs.3,50,000/-. Therefore, the total amount of compensation to which theappellant would be entitled to is enhanced from Rs.3,00,000/- toRs.4,50,000/-.

Conclusion

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the amount ofcompensation payable to the appellant from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/-.The liability to pay the enhanced amount of compensation shall be joint andseveral of the respondents. The appellant shall also be entitled to receiveinterest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Theentire amount of enhanced compensation along with interest accruingthereupon be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company with thelearned Tribunal within three months from today. The same shall, thereafter,be disbursed in favour of Smt. Satinder Kaur, wife of the appellant againstproper receipt and identification.

April 21, 2009satish

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE