16.01.2025 Ravi Kumar & ar & Others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 Jitender FAO-8596-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.01.2025 Ravi Kumar & ar & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) Present:- ocate Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocat Mr. Abhinav, Advocate Mr. Anuj Sehrawat, Advoca Mr. Rahul Gugnani, Advoca for the appellant. vocate vocate Mr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapat for respondent No.3. apati, Advocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present appeal has been f en filed by the injured-claimant against Awar ward dated 25.08.2017 passed ed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Farid Faridabad (hereinafter referred to to as “the learned Tribunal”) whereby the c he claim petition filed by the appell pellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle icles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred erred to as “the Act”), was partly allowed and t nd the appellant was granted com compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- with interest @ est @ 8% per annum from the date date of filing the petition till its realisation. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pra Prajapati, Advocate puts in appearance on e on behalf of respondent No.3 and and files Vakalatnama, which is taken on recor ecord. 3. Brief facts of the case are are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of plead leadings and evidence adduced b d before it concluded that the appellant was was injured in a motor vehicular lar accident that took place on 18.01.2016 du 6 due to the rash and negligent d nt driving of Swift car bearing registration N n No.HR-50D-7220 (hereinafter re r referred to as “the offending SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) vehicle’) being eing driven by respondent No.1, ow , owned by respondent No.2 and insured by res respondent No.3. Vide the impugn pugned Award, the respondents Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) No.1, 2 and 3 d 3 were held jointly and severally rally liable to pay the above said compensation tion. 4. Learned counsel for the ap e appellant seeks enhancement of compensati sation on the ground that the appe ppellant had suffered fracture in the accident in nt in question. The appellant had su ad suffered permanent disability. He remained b ed bed-ridden for 4 months. As suc such, the amount of Rs.10,000/- granted for m r mental pain and agony, deserves rves to be enhanced. Moreover, while computi puting the compensation, the incom ncome of the appellant has been taken on the l he lower side. Even meagre amoun ounts have been awarded under other heads. ds. It is accordingly prayed that the c the compensation granted to the injured claima imant/appellant be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel r for respondent No.3/Insurance r Company opp opposes the prayer made on be n behalf of the appellant and submits the le e learned Tribunal has awarded ver very just and fair compensation in the facts an s and circumstances of the case and and no interference is called for in the impugn pugned Award. Accordingly, dismis missal of the present appeal is prayed for. 6. 7. No other argument is raise aised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned co counsel for the parties and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 8. The appellant has filed led the present claim petition seeking compe mpensation of Rs.25 lakh along wit with interest @ 18% per annum from the date date of accident till the date of of realisation of amount. The appellant as P as PW1 in his Affidavit (Ex.PW1/A 1/A) had averred that he had incurred medi edical treatment expense of Rs.8 l s.8 lakh. The record reveals that in granting th g the impugned compensation, th , the ld. Tribunal has examined every aspect o ect of the matter in great detail, inc , including the evidence brought on record by by the parties. As such, as per the r the evidence provided, on the basis of medi edical bills and cash memos,it wa it was found that the appellant SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) remained adm admitted in hospital from 08.11.201 .2016 to 10.11.2016 incurring an Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) expense of R of Rs.8,000/- vide bill (Ex.P49); a ; and was again admitted in hospital from rom 15.02.2017 to 23.02.2017 inc incurring medical expenses of Rs.4,46,147/- - as per bill (Ex.P105). In OPD tre D treatment as per cash memos and receipts E pts Ex.P5 to Ex.P18, Ex.P29 to Ex.P Ex.P74, Ex.P76 to Ex.P115 and Ex.P119 to to Ex.P129, the appellant show showed medical expenses of Rs.6,61,800/- -. Accordingly, the ld. Tribunal unal had granted Rs.6,70,000/- towards medic edical treatment expenses. 8.1. Further the learned Tribu ribunal in a most just and fair manner keepin eping in view the fact that in the ac e accident in question, the right leg of the pet petitioner had been crushed unde nder the offending vehicle as a result of which hich he had sustained compound f nd fracture below his right knee and had susta ustained other injuries on thigh and and other parts of the body for which he “m “might” have remained confined ined in bed for 4 months the learned Tribun ibunal had granted Rs.20,000/- @ R @ Rs.5,000/- per month towards attendant exp expenses. 8.2. Further, conveyance exp expenses of Rs.30,000/-; and Rs.5,000/- wa was granted towards special diet diet. The learned Tribunal also took into acco account the fact that the appellan ellant had claimed that he was working in SD SD Public School Sonhad, Hodal o al on a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Althou lthough there was no salary certifi rtificate brought on record, yet the learned Tr d Tribunal granted Rs.40,000/- towa owards loss of income. 8.3 Even though no permane anent disability certificate was filed by the a he appellant, the Tribunal granted ted Rs.50,000/- towards loss of future income ome and permanent disability; Rs.1 Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain & agony. Thus Thus, granting a total compensation tion of Rs.8,25,000/- along with interest @ 8% 8% per annum from the date o te of filing the petition till its realisation. 9. 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 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) compensation tion granted to the appellant. t. Accordingly, in view of the discussion abo above, I find no case is made out t ut that merits interference with the impugned ned Award. I find the compensatio sation awarded to the appellant to be just and and fair in the facts and circumsta mstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 of 2 of the Act is a beneficial legislati islation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supre upreme Court, the same cannot be t be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a s r a source of profit. Hon’ble Suprem reme Court in ‘State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kau Kaur’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 4043 and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 S 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of com f compensation should be just and r nd reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nza nor a source of profit but at the t the same time it should not be a pittance. Thu . Thus, all that has to be determin ined in the facts of a given case is, that the co e compensation accorded is ‘just’. In t’. In my considered view, in the present case 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 case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma ma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon Hon’ble Supreme Court has held held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and and benevolence cannot be the gu e guiding factor for determining the compensa nsation. 10. 11.
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 16.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)