F.A. O. No. 2612 of 2012 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. No. 2612 of 2012 Date of decision:-02.08.2013

Dinesh Kumar

....... Appellant

Versus

Punit Kumar Kashyap and another

........ Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

Present: Mr. Rakesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent No.1 ex-parte.

Mr. Gurpreet Singh,Advocate for respondent no. 2.

****

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

This is an appeal brought by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim petition of the appellant brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for compensation in a sum of

F.A. O. No. 2612 of 2012 -2-

Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries he sustained in the accident that took place on 12.03.2008 has been allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Gurgaon ( for short 'the Tribunal') in a sum of Rs.49,700/-.

On 12.3.2008 Dinesh Kumar, the claimant was going on his scooter to village Khandsa. He suffered injuries in an accident that occurred on Rajiv Chowk, Gurgaon. He suffered grievous injuries including fractures. He has also claimed that he suffered head injury on account of which he became unconscious and he was taken to Civil Hospital Gurgaon by a patrolling party. He was then referred to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, where he remained admitted from 12.3.2008 to 14.03.2008. He was operated upon there. He used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. After the accident, he is unable to do his job properly. He sought compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for his injuries.

The aforesaid averments of the claimant have been denied by the respondents. They have not only denied the accident to have occurred on account of rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no.1 but have also denied the extent of injuries allegedly suffered by the claimant and the amount sought as compensation by him.

Learned Tribunal has found a sum of Rs.24,669/- as

F.A. O. No. 2612 of 2012 -3-

spent by the claimant in his treatment. He has allowed this amount to him as compensation . Besides it, he has allowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, special diet , mental agony and transportation etc. and has also allowed a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for loss of income during treatment for two months. Consequently, he allowed a sum of Rs.49,669/- as compensation, which was rounded off to Rs.49,770/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant remained hospitalized at Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. He was operated upon there for fracture of his nasal bone. He has further submitted that for the injuries, he must have remained immobilized for at least two months. According to him, learned Tribunal has not cared to award adequate amount for pain and suffering, special diet, mental agony and transportation etc. He has also claimed that the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.2500/- per month, which is too low to assess compensation for the loss of income during treatment.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that adequate compensation has been assessed in this case and there is no necessity for enhancement of the same.

The period of hospitalization in this case is too short. However, the claimant-appellant underwent operation for fracture

F.A. O. No. 2612 of 2012 -4-

of nasal bone. A sum of Rs.24,669/- was proved by the claimant by way of bills as the expenses incurred by him in his treatment.

It is a case where the claimant became unconscious and was taken to the hospital by the patrolling party. It was a case of urgency and it can be a case where some amount might have been spent without obtaining bills. While allowing compensation for expenses on the treatment, some credit should be given to such expenses. In these circumstances, I assess a sum of Rs.27,000/- as compensation for the expenses incurred in the treatment of the claimant. Compensation should have been assessed independently for pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- would cover up the aspect of pain and suffering while another sum of Rs.6000/ each would cover the special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges.

The income of the claimant is taken by the Tribunal at a very low amount. Even an unskilled labourer has been earning something around Rs.150/- or 200/- per day. Taking the income of the claimant at Rs.5000/- per month, I assess a sum of Rs.10,000/ as compensation for loss of income during treatment. In this way the claimant is found to be entitled to Rs.70,000/- as compensation.

F.A. O. No. 2612 of 2012 -5-

In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.49,700/- to Rs.70,000/- which shall be payable to the appellant with interest and as per the other terms and conditions as settled by the Tribunal.

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

02.08.2013 dinesh