1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. FAO-3048-2018
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 Tarsem Sharm arma Rajeev Kumar mar & Others Vs. FAO-3048-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- cate Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. cate Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.3. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** CM-11799-CII CII-2018 This is an application u for n under Section 151 CPC for condonation o on of delay of 148 days in re-filing th ng the appeal. After going through the on, the contents of the application, supported by by affidavit of the applicant, the s all the same is allowed subject to all just exception tions and delay of 148 days in l is in re-filing the present appeal is condoned. MAIN CASE Present appeal has been nt een filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhan nhancement of compensation of R he of Rs.1,21,004/- awarded by the SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Motor Accide cident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (he Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) he (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vid vide Award dated 11.02.2016 pass ed passed in MACT Case No.18 dated 01.02.2014 fil filed under Section 166 of the M ter e Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 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/injured-claima a imant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicul icular accident that took place on ue on 09.07.2013 at about 4 pm due to the rash a h and negligent driving of car bea - bearing registration No.HR-08G- 6042 (hereina einafter referred to as “the offen nt ffending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offe offending vehicle was owned by re by y respondent No.2 and insured by respondent N t No.3. The above-said compensa ith ensation was granted along with interest @ 7.5 7.5% p.a. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the ap of e appellant seeks enhancement of compensation tion by submitting that in awarding nly ding meagre compensation of only Rs.1,21,004/- -, the learned Tribunal has fail he failed to take into account the serious and g d grievous injuries suffered by the in the appellant in the accident in question. It It is submitted that after the ad he accident, the appellant had remained hos hospitalised and even an implant he lant was put in the back of the appellant. The The appellant had also proved bills nd bills on file (Ex.C1 to Ex.C13) and had incurred e red expenditure of Rs.1 lakh on his of his treatment. However, none of SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) these facts ha s have been taken into account wh Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) to t while granting compensation to the appellant llant. It is also submitted that ed hat the appellant had suffered temporary dis disability of 57%, which has not be ed t been considered by the learned Tribunal. It is a t is accordingly prayed that the imp nd impugned Award be modified and the compensa nsation granted to the appellant be t be enhanced. 4. Prayer of the appellant by lant is vehemently opposed by learned couns unsel for respondent No.3-Insuranc at rance Company by submitting that no ground is d is made out to enhance the co he e compensation awarded to the appellant. It It is submitted that the learned ing ned Tribunal held the offending vehicle to be be involved in the accident in que at question only on the ground that the driver of t of the offending vehicle had not be nd t been examined in the case; and as such adver dverse inference was drawn against ed ainst him. It is accordingly prayed that the prese resent appeal be dismissed. 5. 6. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned couns d ounsel for the parties and perused the case file in ile in great detail. 7. It has been submitted on b in on behalf of the appellant that in the accident i nt in question, the appellant had s nd ad suffered multiple grievous and serious injurie juries. However, despite repeated sel ted queries from learned counsel for the appell pellant, no information is forthcom of hcoming as regards the nature of injuries suffer ffered by the appellant. Even in t as in the claim petition all that has SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) been stated b ed by the appellant is that the offe Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) nd offending vehicle had come and struck into th o the motorcycle on which the app ere appellant and his daughter were riding due to to which they fell down on the r ple he road and “...sustained multiple injuries on thei their person. An ambulance 108 cam he 8 came at the spot by chance. The claimant and h and his daughter were taken to Civ as o Civil Hospital and claimant was referred to PGI o PGI. The claimant and his daughter the ghter suffered injuries because the car struck into into the motorcycle. FIR was not lod nts t lodged because the respondents no.1 and 2 co 2 committed to bear all the expen the expenses and to compensate the claimant, but t but they failed to fulfill the promise the mise. It is further alleged that the accident took ook place due to rash and negligen .1. ligent driving of respondent no.1. The motorcycl rcycle was driven by the claimant a on ant at a very slow speed and on correct side. ide. Respondent no.1 Rajiv Sharm the harma struck the car into the motorcycle by e by coming on wrong side. The cla in e claimant remained admitted in the hospital fo tal for sufficient period. Due to the as o the accident, the claimant has become perma ermanently disabled and he is on be red on bed. The claimant has suffered lot of pain and and is still feeling inconvenience d ing ce due to the injuries...”. Nothing whatsoever ha er has been stated as regards the na he nature of injuries suffered by the appellant. Eve Even the nature of permanent en ent disability etc. has not been mentioned. 8. A perusal of the evidence ws ence led by the appellant shows that the appe ppellant had examined CW1 Dr. Ar ed r. Arun Kapoor, who had deposed SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) that the appe ppellant was admitted in the hos Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) as hospital on 10.07.2013 and was discharged on on 14.07.2013 and during hospit on spitalisation “implant was put on the back side o ide of the patient.” Although the ap rd e appellant had brought on record a Disability Ce y Certificate but the same was not he not proved by the appellant. The appellant had had produced medical bills (Ex.C1 of x.C1 to Ex.C13) for an amount of Rs.66,004/-. A . As such, the learned Tribunal h as al had awarded compensation as follows: – - Special diet – Rs.10,000/- 5,000/- Pain & suffering – Rs.25,00 .10,000/- Attendant charges – Rs.10, Transportation charges – Medical expenses – Rs.66,0 Total - Rs.1,21,004/-. .66,004/- Rs.10,000/- 9. As regards the argument ent of learned counsel for the appellant that that the appellant had suffered di d disability of 57%, there is no evidence on on record to support the said c id contention. Admittedly, the Disability Cert Certificate has not been proved in d in accordance with law before the learned Tr d Tribunal. Nothing has been poin pointed out to this Court in the deposition of C of CW1 Dr. Arun Kapoor regarding ing any disability - permanent or temporary – suffered by the appellant. Rathe ther to the contrary, it has been categorically f lly found by the ld. Tribunal that hat “...There is no permanent or temporary disa disability of the claimant/injured Ta ed Tarsem Sharma in the present case. Although gh at later stages, claimant has has placed on file the disability SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) certificate, but , but this document is not proved oved on the file. It is a settled Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) proposition of of law that disability certificate is te is to be proved on the file by examining the the concerned doctor, but it is not so ot so in the present case....”. 10. 11. 30.04.2025 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 speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)