Present:- Mr.Rajeshwar Thakur Advocate Vs. Prem Chand and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1128751
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-30-2014
AppellantPresent:- Mr.Rajeshwar Thakur Advocate
RespondentPrem Chand and Others
Excerpt:
fao no.987 of 1996 -1- in the high court for the states of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.987 of 1996 in date of decision: 30.01.2014 h.s.bajwa ........appellant versus prem chand and others ........respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice jitendra chauhan present:- mr.rajeshwar thakur, advocate, for the appellant. mr.ashwani talwar, advocate with mr.jagjit singh, advocate, for the insurance company. mr.kunal garg, advocate/amicus curiae ****** jitendra chauhan, j. 1. the present appeal i.e.fao no.987 of 1996 has been preferred by the claimant-appellant, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the impugned award dated 07.03.1996, passed by the learned motor accident claims tribunal, ambala (for short, 'the tribunal') on account of the injuries suffered by him in an accident involving truck no.hra-570 and his car bearing no.ddu-6790. 3. the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate as he has spent more expenses on account of his injuries suffered by him and loss of damage of his car. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company has opposed the present appeal. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. it is evident from the record that the accident had anil kumar 2014.02.24 10:02 taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of truck no.hra- i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.987 of 1996 -2- 570 by respondent no.1. the claimant-appellant was holding the rank of major in 3 assam rifles at the time of accident. in his cross- examination he admitted that his treatment in the hospital was free of costs being as army officer. the claimant had also relied upon the documents ex.p-7 and p.8 namely prescription slip and medico-case sheet prepared in the hospital. a perusal of those documents reveals that there was no external injury on the person of the claimants. thus no amount of compensation could be awarded for injuries on his person as there was nothing in evidence that the claimant suffered any such injury in the accident or suffered any pain and suffering etc.or any other loss due to injuries on his person. as regard compensation of car, appellant/applicant had submitted documents ex.p-2 and ex.p3 as bill of repair of his car but he had failed to prove before the court that he had spent rs.70,000/- for the damages of his car. all the documents submitted by the claimants regarding the damages to car was simply procured one just to get the compensation and in fact no such amount was actually incurred on the repair as detailed in documents ex.p2 and p-3 as these documents were issued by m.s.mechanical works, chandigarh only due to the fact that harvinder singh, supervisor, pw-2 was friendly with the claimant and was known to the appellant for the last so many years.actually the car was damaged by the truck only of its back side which was cleared from ddr and statements of the claimants and the photographs ex.p.3. as such, learned tribunal awarded rs.25,000/- as compensation for the damage to the car of the claimant bearing no.ddu- 6790. in view of the above, since the appellant was serving as major in the indian army and remained hospitalized from 15.08.1994 to 20.09.1995. however, nothing has been paid for the injuries. therefore, the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, it would be anil kumar 2014.02.24 10:02sufficient if, rs.25,000/- is more given to the appellant under the head i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.987 of 1996 -3- of pain and suffering. accordingly, the claimant is awarded rs.25,000/- on account of pain and suffering, over and above the amount already awarded by the learned tribunal, which shall be payable within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, they shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. with the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the present appeal is partly allowed. 30.01.2014 (jitendra chauhan) anil judge anil kumar 2014.02.24 10:02 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

FAO No.987 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.987 of 1996 in Date of decision: 30.01.2014 H.S.Bajwa ........Appellant Versus Prem Chand and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr.Rajeshwar Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate with Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate, for the Insurance Company.

Mr.Kunal Garg, Advocate/Amicus Curiae ****** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

1.

The present appeal i.e.FAO No.987 of 1996 has been preferred by the claimant-appellant, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the impugned award dated 07.03.1996, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, 'the Tribunal') on account of the Injuries suffered by him in an accident involving truck No.HRA-570 and his car bearing No.DDU-6790.

3.

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate as he has spent more expenses on account of his injuries suffered by him and loss of damage of his Car.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is evident from the record that the accident had Anil Kumar 2014.02.24 10:02 taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No.HRA- I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.987 of 1996 -2- 570 by respondent No.1.

The claimant-appellant was holding the Rank of Major in 3 Assam Rifles at the time of accident.

In his cross- examination he admitted that his treatment in the hospital was free of costs being as Army Officer.

The claimant had also relied upon the documents Ex.P-7 and P.8 namely prescription slip and medico-case sheet prepared in the Hospital.

A perusal of those documents reveals that there was no external injury on the person of the claimants.

Thus no amount of compensation could be awarded for injuries on his person as there was nothing in evidence that the claimant suffered any such injury in the accident or suffered any pain and suffering etc.or any other loss due to injuries on his person.

As regard compensation of Car, appellant/applicant had submitted documents Ex.P-2 and Ex.P3 as bill of repair of his car but he had failed to prove before the Court that he had spent Rs.70,000/- for the damages of his car.

All the documents submitted by the claimants regarding the damages to car was simply procured one just to get the compensation and in fact no such amount was actually incurred on the repair as detailed in documents Ex.P2 and P-3 as these documents were issued by M.S.Mechanical Works, Chandigarh only due to the fact that Harvinder Singh, Supervisor, PW-2 was friendly with the claimant and was known to the appellant for the last so many yeaRs.Actually the car was damaged by the Truck only of its back side which was cleared from DDR and statements of the claimants and the photographs Ex.P.3.

As such, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the damage to the car of the claimant bearing No.DDU- 6790.

In view of the above, since the appellant was serving as Major in the Indian Army and remained hospitalized from 15.08.1994 to 20.09.1995.

However, nothing has been paid for the injuries.

Therefore, the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, it would be Anil Kumar 2014.02.24 10:02sufficient if, Rs.25,000/- is more given to the appellant under the head I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.987 of 1996 -3- of pain and suffering.

Accordingly, the claimant is awarded Rs.25,000/- on account of pain and suffering, over and above the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal, which shall be payable within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, they shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization.

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the present appeal is partly allowed.

30.01.2014 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) anil JUDGE Anil Kumar 2014.02.24 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document