F.A.O.No.3215 o”
1. .IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.3215 of 2009 [O&M].Date of Decision: August 30th, 2013 Paramjit Singh ...Appellant Versus Narender Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants.
Ms.Madhu Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
MAIN APPEAL Paramjit Singh, the claimant has brought this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
He had filed his claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”.) seeking compensation in a sum of ` 10.00 lakhs for the injuries he suffered in a roadside accident that took place on 28.2.2007.
Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 17.1.2009 has allowed the claim petition in a sum of ` 2,45,000/- .
Prakash Som 2013.09.05 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O.No.3215 o”
2. .Alongwith the appeal, an application has been filed for additional evidence under order 41 rule 27 CPC for placing on record some vouchers of expenses incurred on the treatment that took place after the decision of the claim petition.
However, learned counsel for the appellant, at the time of arguments, did not press this application and, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that learned Tribunal has not considered the disability of the claimant at even 20%.
According to him, as per the certificate, the disability was 60%, but as the earlier disability of the claimant was 40% due to post polio residual paralysis, the remaining disability of 20% was attributable to this accident and, therefore, it should have been taken as the disability arising out of the injuries suffered in this accident.
According to him, learned Tribunal taking the disability at only 10% awarded a sum of `20,000/- as compensation for the loss of future income.
He has further submitted that compensation assessed for special diet and loss of enjoyment of life is also on lower side.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted, on the other hand, that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation and no further enhancement thereto is possible.
In a case, the victim was already suffering due to post polio residual paralysis, slightest increase in the disability would further compound the disability.
The disability which was already found by the doctors at 20% on account of the accident should not have been reduced to 10% on account of some mistake in mentioning the disability.
Learned Tribunal has rightly increased the amount of expenses Prakash Som 2013.09.05 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O.No.3215 o”
3. .incurred in the treatment taking into account the fact that all bills are not collected by the victim's attendants.
Taking the compensation to have been adequately assessed under all other heads, I only find it to be lacking on the aspect of loss of earning capacity on account of the disability.
The claimant was already disabled and further disability has compounded the same making him further incapable of earning his living in future.
In these circumstances, I find that a sum of ` 20,000/- as compensation for loss of future income is insufficient.
I enhance it to ` 60,000/-.
In these circumstances, adding a sum of ` 40,000/- to the already assessed compensation, I find that a sum of ` 2,85,000/- would be adequate compensation to the claimant for the loss suffered by him in the aforesaid accident.
The appeal is, consequently allowed, enhancing the compensation from ` 2,45,000/- to ` 2,85,000/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc.appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE August 30th, 2013 som Prakash Som 2013.09.05 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document