The severity of injuries and loss of income can justify the enhancement of compensation in motor accident cases.

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

CM-24852-CII-2014

1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/cross-objector has argued that delay of 121 days in filing the cross-objections was caused as the cross-objector was not intimated about the decision of the claim petition. It was on receipt of notice in the execution petition, he came to know and immediately filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of ex parte award. In the meanwhile, claimants filed appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. The cross-objector withdrew the application to pursue their remedy before this Court, which resulted in delay of 121 days in filing the cross-objections.

2. The application is supported by affidavit. The same is allowed and delay of 121 days in filing the cross-objections is, hereby, condoned.

FAO-1930-2012

3. This is appeal filed by Ajit Singh (later referred to as 'the claimant') seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (later referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.07.2011 for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 07.06.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.HR-58B/0223 ((later referred to as 'the offending vehicle') by respondent No.1 Jagtar Singh.

4. The owner of the offending vehicle namely Tarsem Kumar also filed cross-objections challenging the rights allowed by the Tribunal to the insurance company i.e. respondent No.3 to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimant from him.

5. As the only issues involved in this appeal and the cross-objections relate to seeking of enhancement of compensation as well as recovery rights allowed to the insurance company respectively, detailed facts of the case are being skipped for the sake of brevity.

6. Firstly, I take the cross-objections filed by Tarsem Kumar (XOBJC-215-CII-2014).

7. On issue No.4, as to “whether respondent No.1 was not holding a legal and valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR”, the Tribunal recorded the findings in para 9 and 10 of the award, which are reproduced as follows:-

“9. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that the driver of the truck was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The report of investigating agency Ex.R2 has been relied upon. Ex.R3 is the copy of driving licence of respondent no.1 Jagtar Singh along with report of licensing authority, Patiala. As per the said report, driving licence No.7212/R/02 is in the name of Sukhwinder Singh son of Chain Singh.

10. It is proved that driving licence which is alleged on the name of Jagtar Singh, is fake document. In the office of licensing authority, said driving licence No.7212/R/02 is actually issued in the name of Sukhwinder Singh son of Chain Singh. Neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 has rebutted the said evidence. They have preferred not to contest the petition. No other driving licence alleged to have been possessed by respondent no.1 has been placed on record. The evidence of the respondent no.3 is un rebutted and it is proved that on the day of accident, respondent no.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence. This issue is decided accordingly against respondent no.3 and in favour of respondents no.1 and 2 (sic in favour of respondent no.3 and against respondents no.1 and 2).”

8. On perusal of the record of the Tribunal, I find that the above finding is based on misreading of evidence on record. Driving licence of Jagtar Singh, driver of the offending vehicle was produced on record as Ex.R3. It was bearing No.12732/R/C/06. Licensing Authority, Patiala has made report that this licence was issued in the name of Jagtar Singh and is valid. Based on the report of Licensing Authority, investigator engaged by the insurance company also gave report Ex.R2 that the driving licence, copy of whic