1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. FAO-1967-2019
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 237 ingh Jawahar Singh Deepak Kuma umar & Another Vs. FAO-1967-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advoc vocate for the appellant. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present appeal has been nt een filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhan nhancement of compensation of R he of Rs.6,50,000/- awarded by the Motor Accide cident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (he he (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vid , vide Award dated 13.07.2018 pa .99 passed in Claim Petition No.99 dated 29.09.2 .09.2016 filed under Section 166 ct 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter re er referred to as “the Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are he are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of plead leadings and oral & documentary it tary evidence adduced before it concluded tha that the appellant had suffered lar red injuries in a motor vehicular accident that that took place on 03.04.2016 du nt due to the rash and negligent driving of thr three-wheeler bearing registration ter ation No.HR-73-5772 (hereinafter referred to as o as “the offending vehicle”) by res ing y respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was o as owned by respondent No.1 and . and insured by respondent No.2. The above-sai said compensation was granted al er d along with interest @ 7.5% per SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document annum from om the date of filing the claim pe Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) ual petition till the date of actual realisation. Re Respondents were held jointly a he ly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid com compensation. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the ap at e appellant inter alia submits that the compensa ensation granted by the learned Trib s it Tribunal is on the lower side as it is proven fact fact on record that the appellant w in nt was a serving Sub-Inspector in the Haryana R na Roadways Depot at Faridabad ch, d and is an agriculturist. As such, prior to the the accident, the appellant was of as deriving monthly income of Rs.40,000/-. It . It is further submitted that in he in the accident in question, the appellant had had suffered multiple simple and g ich nd grievous injuries due to which he remained ed hospitalised for about 2 mont nt onths. The appellant had spent about Rs.10 la 10 lakh on his treatment. The appe nd ppellant is an Ex-serviceman and getting pensio nsion only. In addition to that, he is ral e is owner of irrigated agricultural land. Before t re the accident, the appellant was nd was a very successful farmer and himself used sed to cultivate, manage and sup is supervise his entire land. It is accordingly p ly prayed that the Award be mod ion modified and the compensation awarded to th o the appellant be enhanced. 4. 5. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned co nd counsel for the appellant and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 6. The facts as pleaded by im by the appellant in the Claim Petition are re that on 3.4.2016, claimant was us was going to his house from Bus SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Stand and wh when he reached near Chirag Pala Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) - Palace, around 6.30 p.m., a three- wheeler beari earing registration no.HR-73-5772/o en /offending vehicle, being driven by the respon pondent no.1 in a rash and neglige igh gligent manner and also at a high speed came a e and hit him from behind. The dr ion e driver of the vehicle in question told his name ame as Deepak son of Balbir. One ge One Raj Singh, resident of village Banchari and and Mukesh Kumar, resident of Ho ot f Hodal rushed towards the spot and they call called Satish, son of the claiman he ant on telephone, who got the injured admit dmitted in Asian Hospital, Faridab de ridabad. Respondent no.1 made efforts to com compromise the matter, but in vain ad vain. The accident in question had taken place so e solely due to rash and negligent d cle nt driving of the offending vehicle by responden dent no.1. Claimant got registere his tered a case on the basis of his statement vid vide FIR No.213 dated 22.4.2016 he 016 against him for causing the accident in qu n question. It has been further ple he r pleaded that at the time of the accident, claim claimant sustained multiple and gri ad, grievous injuries including head, right leg and nd chest. He was taken to Asian H he ian Hospital, Faridabad, where he remained adm admitted from 3.4.2016 to 7.6.2 lso .6.2016 and where he was also medico-legally gally examined. A sum of Rs.10,00,0 nt, ,00,000/- was spent on treatment, conveyance, a e, attendant and special diet. He w nd He was still under treatment and some more a re amount was required for his fu ed s future treatment. He was aged about 57 yea years and was a Sub Inspector in at r in Haryana Roadways Depot at Faridabad. His . His monthly income was Rs.40,00 he 0,000/-. Prior to the accident, he was quite ha hale and hearty. He suffered gr to d great pain and agony. Due to SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document injuries sustai stained in the accident, he is una Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) nd unable to work continuously and became a per permanent disabled person. The cl .25 e claimant made a claim of Rs.25 lacs. All the re e respondents are liable to pay the the compensation. 7. However, a perusal of he of the record shows that the appellant in h in his cross-examination has himse ect imself admitted that “It is correct that I was re s receiving full salary during the my the accidental period from my Department” nt”. In view of the said admission as ion of the appellant, nothing was awarded towa towards loss of income. Further, a vit r, as per the duly sworn affidavit submitted by t by the appellant, he had stated the en therein that he had already taken reimbursemen ment of Rs.2,32,000/- and Rs.2,23,4 nd ,23,450/- against bills (Mark A and Mark B) from om his Department. As such, of the to the medical bills (Ex.P7, Ex.P10 to Ex.P26 and Ex d Ex.P27 to Ex.P40) produced by th of y the appellant for a total sum of Rs.9,68,300/- -, the appellant had already rec he received Rs.4,62,450/- from the Haryana Road Roadways towards medical reimb ad eimbursement. Ld. Tribunal had accordingly aw ly awarded remaining amount of R cal of Rs.5,06,000/- towards medical expenses. 8. Further, as per the Disa he Disability Certificate (Ex.P5), the appellant was was shown to have suffered no ur non-union fracture right femur (subtrochaner aneric) with proximal femur nail i of ail in situ. As per the Board of Doctors consti nstituted to assess the disability of ed y of the appellant, he had suffered disability to t to the extent of 12% only. The he The same was proven from the evidence of P of PW1 Dr. Chirag Sethi, Orthop ed thopedic Surgeon. Thus, learned SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Tribunal had ad correctly awarded Rs.24,000/- Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) of - i.e. Rs.2,000/- for every 1% of disability in te in terms of judgment in “Ram Ka nal Karan Goyal Vs. Sub-Divisional Engineer, Mec Mechanical & Others” 2008(2) RCR ID RCR (Civil) 103; Law Finder Doc ID # 138136. As As the appellant had remained ho to d hospitalised from 03.04.2016 to 12.04.2016 a 6 and then again from 03.06.20 ad 6.2016 to 07.06.2016 and had undergone thr e three operations, the learned Trib for Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- for pain & sufferin fering. Further, a sum of Rs.60,000/ of 00/- was awarded towards loss of amenities and and enjoyment of life; Rs.20,000 nd ,000/- towards special diet and attendant ch charges and Rs.10,000/- for tr us, r transportation charges. Thus, awarding tota total compensation of Rs.6,50,000/ 00/- in following manner:- i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. 9. Rs.5,06,000/- ount of mittedly om his as claimant Medical expenses less amoun admitt reimbursement taken by from department On account of disability to extent of 12% Pain and suffering Loss of amenities & enjoymen life Special diet and attendant char Transportation charges Total to the Rs.24,000/- Rs.30,000/- ment of Rs.60,000/- charges Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.6,50,000/- From the above facts, it is it is clear that a very just and fair compensation tion has been awarded to the app appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been sho shown to this Court that would uld merit enhancement of the compensation tion granted to the appellant. I find find the compensation awarded to the appella ellant to be just and fair in the fac e facts and circumstances of the SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document case. No doub doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a s a beneficial legislation yet, as Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) cautioned by t by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the , the same cannot be allowed to be treated as as a windfall or a source of profit rofit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Hary aryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & aur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, ha has held that the amount of comp ompensation should be just and reasonable, it e, it should neither be a bonanza n za nor a source of profit but at the same time time it should not be a pittance. In e. In my considered view, in the case, present case the learned Tribunal has has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation tion, which is in accordance with with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supre upreme Court and therefore, does n es not warrant the interference of this Court. urt. In the case of “General Man Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Ot Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that hat misplaced sympathy, generosity sity and benevolence cannot be the guiding fac g factor for determining the compen pensation. 10. 11. 07.05.2025 Sunena
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaking Whether reportab aking/reasoned: rtable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document