Dei Chand alias Devi Chand vs Mahi Pal and Another

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimant, Dei Chand alias Devi Chand, for enhancement of compensation. His claim petition brought u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 met with success with learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 31.01.2011. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7000/- as compensation to the claimant. Dei Chand alias Devi Chand, the appellant claimed himself to have been taken, after the accident, to Civil Hospital Karnal, where from he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh on the same day and he remained admitted there for one month. He has claimed that thereafter he was again hospitalized at General Hospital, Karnal from 18.01.2008 to 25.01.2008. He has claimed that he spent Rs. 1,50,000/- in his treatment, out of which, PGI, Chandigarh exempted Rs. 1,25,000/- looking to his poor condition. He has claimed that a sum of Rs. 80,000/- has been spent on transportation, special diet and he had spent Rs. 15,000/- on attendant. He has claimed that he was working as a labourer and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as labourer and by doing dairy work.

The claim petition of Devi Chand has been taken to be a case of confusing evidence. According to learned Tribunal, the date of the documents was prior to the date of the accident and so the documents were not believable. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 5000/- for pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 2000/- for special diet had been assessed and a total sum of Rs. 7000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has remained hospitalized for more than one month and his pain and suffering can well be imagined by anyone. The grant of Rs. 5000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- for better diet is adding insult to injury.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that nothing was proved by the appellant on the record and whatever he brought in the name of documents had been of doubtful nature. According to him, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7000/- to the claimant, which is adequate in the circumstances of the case.

It is true that a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- had been exempted by PGI, Chandigarh from the bills of the appellant looking to his poor condition. However, it cannot be said that even if those expenses were exempted, he would not have to spend any amount in his injuries. He has remained hospitalized for more than one month. He has been transported by special conveyance also. Looking to the margin of the amount spent by him and the amount of pain and suffering as also the amount spent on transportation, I find the claimant to be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing compensation payable to the appellant from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be payable with interest @ 6% per annum as allowed by the Tribunal.