JUDGMENT

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. Despite service of notice on the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, nobody appeared.

3. The Appellant is impugning herein the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 8th October, 2009 -in FAO No. 2484 of 2009. An appeal was filed before the High Court by the owner of the scooter, Amir Chand, against an award dated 12.2.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Hisar, awarding to the Appellant, compensation of Rs. 1,36,547/- along with 9% interest.

4. The contention of the owner of the scooter, before the High Court, was that the accident and his involvement in it was not proved and the claim petition should have been dismissed. The High Court ultimately upheld the appeal of the owner and set aside the findings of the Tribunal.

5. The material facts are that on 22.01.2003 at about 12.00 noon the Appellant herein, the claimant before the Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 before the High Court, was going from Baganwala to Tosham on a Motor Cycle (No. HR 16C-8379), driven by Balwan with the claimant on the pillion seat. When the Motor Cycle was half a kilometer away from Baganwala, Suresh - Respondent No. 2 herein, came from the other direction in another scooter (No. HR 20-5793) from the wrong side and hit the right leg of the Appellant as a result of which she fell down and her right leg was fractured and she received multiple injuries. The accident was witnessed by certain persons and one of them, Umed Singh, took the Appellant to Dr. Punia's clinic from where she was referred to Chawla Nursing Home, Hisar, where' she remained admitted till 6.2.2003. The matter was also reported to SSP, Hisar. Ultimately, the claim petition was filed by her on account of her serious injuries.

6. The Tribunal in its judgment considered the evidence of PW.1-Umed Singh as also the evidence of Dr. Parveen Chawla-PW.2, Dr. R.S. Dalai as PW.5 apart from examining the Appellant-PW.4 and also one Satbir Singh as PW.3. It has come on evidence of PW.2-Dr. Parveen Chawla that on 22.1.2003 the Appellant was admitted with diagnosis of fracture of tibia. Plating and bone grafting was done by P.W.2-Dr. Parveen Chawla and the Appellant was discharged on 6.2.2003. The discharge card was also proved. PW.3-Satbir Singh deposed that the Appellant moved a complaint in the office of SSP Hisar on 11.3.2003 and the same was sent in original on 2.4.2003 by SSP Hisar to SSP Hanumangarh. PW.5-Dr. R.S. Dalai also deposed that the Appellant was examined on 17.12.2003 by a Medical Board comprising of Civil Surgeon Dr. O.P. Phogat, Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. T.S. Bagri and Dr. Dayal himself and on examination the Appellant was found to have 32% permanent disability. In view of combined fracture of both bones of her right leg, her leg was shortened by two inch. The disability certificate was also proved.

7. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of RW.1-Amit Chand and RW2-Suresh Kumar. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal also considered the detailed account of the accident given by the Appellant as PW.4.

8. This Court finds that on consideration of the aforesaid materials on record, the Tribunal granted compensation to the Appellant to the extent of Rs. 1,36,547/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

9. This Court finds that the compensation is certainly not an excessive one. Rather the computation has been made modestly.

10. Unfortunately, this Court finds that the said well considered decision of the Tribunal was set aside by the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that even though complaint was forwarded to SSP Hisar and was further forwarded to SSP Hanumangarh but none from the office of SSP, Hanumangarh came to prove the complaint. The filing of the complaint by the Appellant is not disputed as it appears from the evidence of PW.3-Satbir Singh, who is the Assistant Complaint Clerk in the office of Super