High CourtsSingle Bench

Rustam vs Bijender Sharma

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 30 May 2014 · Citation: (2014) 05 P&H CK 0120

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jitendra Chauhan, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
FAO-2486-2012 and MACT Case No. 48 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 369 words

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short ''the Tribunal''), vide award dated 16.3.2012, on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that due to the injuries, the appellant remained hospitalised from 13.10.2009 to 29.10.2009. He was operated upon twice. He suffered disability to the extent of 7%. No amount has been awarded towards loss of income. The amount awarded towards pain and suffering and other heads is also inadequate. He prays for the enhancement of the compensation.

3.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and adequate. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4.

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

5.

In his statement, PW3 Dr. RK Mehndiratta deposed that the appellant suffered serious fracture injuries and he was operated upon twice. He remained hospitalised from 13.10.2009 to 20.10.2009. He suffered a lot of pain and agony on account of the injuries and operations. Keeping in view the long hospitalisation period and two operations, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering deserves to be enhanced, accordingly, another sum of Rs. 20,000/- is allowed under this head. The appellant is a hawker and he must have immobilized for at least three months. Accordingly, another sum of Rs. 15,000/- is granted towards loss of income. The disability certificate was neither produced before the Tribunal, nor any doctor was examined in this regard. Therefore, the contention with regard to the disability is rejected.

6.

Accordingly, the enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 35,000/- shall be paid to the claimant-appellant, within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellant shall be entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal till its realisation.

7.

In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent.