15.01.2025 Narpat Singh gh & Others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
Page 1 of 5 5 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 ingh Makhan Singh FAO-3434-2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2025 Narpat Singh gh & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) ate Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3. ate Ms. Aakanksha, Advocate dvocate Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advo for respondent No.5. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present appeal has been f en filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhan nhancement of compensation of of Rs.17,353/- granted by the Motor Accide cident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (here hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribun ribunal”) vide Award dated 03.04. .04.2008 passed in MACT Case No.103 of 20 f 2004filed by the appellant under nder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 ct, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “ as “the Act”). 2. Learned counsel for the nt the appellant/injured claimant submits that v at very meagre amount of compens he pensation has been granted to the appellant. It is It is submitted that the appellant he ant had suffered a fracture in the accident in q in question due to which his fo en is foot and left toe have been amputated, d , due to which he is rendered is red permanently disabled. It is SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) accordingly p ly prayed that the meagre main Page 2 of 5 5 (cid:1) he maintenance so granted to the appellant be e be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel or for ce respondent No.3/Insurance Company opp opposes the prayer made on behal its ehalf of the appellant and submits that the appel ppellant has suffered only 10% disab y is disability. Even the said disability is an estimate te as PW2/Dr. Gaurav Bishnoi has ate has stated that the said estimate has been bein being given without seeing the X-ray he ray and whole case history of the injury of the a he appellant. Moreover, there is no at is nothing on record to show that the said disab isability is permanent in nature. Ev by . Even it has not been proven by the appellant ant that his foot has been amputate to tated and only a bare assertion to this effect has has been made in the plaint. More on oreover, it was a case of head on collision. It is t t is therefore, prayed that the prese resent appeal be dismissed. 4. 5. No other argument is raise aised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned cou counsel for the appellant and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pl of pleadings and evidence adduced ced before it concluded that the appellant had had received injuries in a motor v tor vehicular accident that took place on 06.10 6.10.2004 at about 5:30 pm due to e to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing re ng registration No.RJ-10P-4087 (he (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending veh vehicle’), being driven by res respondent No.1, owned by respondent N t No.2 and insured by responde ondent No.3. Learned Tribunal SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) awarded com compensation as above along with with interest @ 7% per annum Page 3 of 5 5 (cid:1) from the date ate of filing the claim petition till re ill realisation. 7. Learned counsel r for the appellant has sought th enhancement ent of compensation on the groun round that he has suffered 10% disability and and his left toe and 8 inches o es of his left foot have been amputated. H d. However, as rightly pointed out out by learned counsel for the respondent In t Insurance Company, the said dis d disability of the appellant has been mention tioned as an estimation byPW2/ W2/Dr. Gaurav Bishnoi without seeing the X X-ray and whole case history of of the injury of the appellant. Even there is e is nothing on record to show how that the said disability is permanent in t in nature. Even it has not been p en proven by the appellant that his foot has be as been amputated and only a bare bare assertion has been made in this regard. (7.1) Further, a perusal of the re he record of the case shows that the appellant lant had failed to prove the medi edical bills before the learned Tribunal. On a On a direct Court query, learned ed counsel for the appellant is unable to eve even answer as to how many days days the appellant had spent in hospital. The he bills produced by the appellant llant were not exhibited and/or proven in acco accordance with law. Even no witn witness was examined to prove the said medic edical bills. (7.2) Further, although in the p e plaint it has been pleaded by the appellant lant that he had suffered fracture ure and that his left toe and 8 inches of his fo his foot had been amputated, howe owever, admittedly, no evidence SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) in support has has been produced by the appellan ellant. As already noticed above, Page 4 of 5 5 (cid:1) it has not bee been denied that PW2/Dr. Gaurav rav Bishnoi, Medical Officer has stated in his te is testimony that he has given disab disability of 10% to the appellant without seeing eing the X-ray or the whole history tory of the case. There is nothing on record to s to suggest that the disability of th f the appellant is permanent in nature or th that there was any amputation ation of his toe or foot. Yet, considering th g the fact that the proceedings bef before the learned Tribunal are summary in n in nature, the learned Tribunal had had accepted the bills produced by the appell pellant for a sum of Rs.4,853/- and Rs.2,500/-. The learned Tribunal had f ad further awarded Rs.3,000/- for for disability and Rs.2,000/- for pain and suffe uffering. Even there is no informat mation on record as to vocation of the appella ellant at the time of accident. It w It was the case of the appellant before the lea learned Tribunal that he is illitera terate, and prior to the accident he was earnin rning Rs.3,500/- per month. It is al is also to be borne in mind that FIR in respect ect of the accident in question was was registered against unknown person. 8. It may also be pointed ted out that the matter was referred to th the Lok Adalat where counsel fo el for the appellant had made a statement on on 08.05.2023 that he is unabl nable to contact the appellant despite best est efforts. Accordingly, on 08.05 8.05.2023 following order was passed:- SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) “On the last date of hearing, a g, as it was stated by learned counsel for the appellant that h at he is unable to contact the appellant despite best efforts, fre s, fresh notice was ordered to be Page 5 of 5 5 (cid:1) issued to the appellant for today oday at the address given in the Memo of Parties. As per report o ort of the Registry, notice issued to the appellant has been receiv eceived back unserved with the report that address is incomplete plete/incorrect and appellant is not traceable on the said add address. No other address is available on the file. Even learne arned counsel for the appellant states that he is having no other a her address or conact number of the appellant. In view of the sam same, there is no possibility of compromise in this appeal in Lo in Lok Adalat. The same is sent back to the Hon'ble High Court for rt for adjudication.” 9. Thus, keeping in view th the entirety of the facts and circumstances nces as noticed above, no ground is nd is made out for enhancement of compensati sation. Present appeal accordingly gly stands dismissed. 10. Pending application(s) if a
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 15.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)