JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM-19809-CII-2013 in FAO-4691-2013

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 168 days in filing the appeal.

Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 21.01.2014. However, no reply has been filed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 4 does not oppose to the prayer made in the application. Even no reply has been filed to the same.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 168 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

MAIN APPEAL(S)

Both the appeals bearing FAO Nos. 4691 & 798 of 2013 arise out of a common award dated 30.10.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), and are, therefore, being decided together by this common judgment. One appeal bearing FAO No. 4691 of 2013 has been preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded, whereas, the second appeal bearing FAO No. 798 of 2013 has been preferred by the Insurance Company, assailing the quantum of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be reduced, on account of injuries suffered by Laxman Singh in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 22.09.2006.

[2] The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs. 4,75,200/- as compensation, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the appeals, involving challenge to the quantum of compensation, are thus, taken up together for adjudication. Facts are being culled out from FAO- 4691-2013 for reference.

FACTS

[3] The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 22.09.2006 while alleging rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38J-8007 by respondent No.1/driver (Bharat Singh). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, passed the award dated 30.10.2012 granting compensation, as noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending vehicle to be negligent in driving the same.

[4] Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 30.10.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant / claimant preferred FAO-4691-2013 seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal was wholly inadequate and not commensurate with the injuries suffered, the period of treatment, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. On the other hand, the Insurance Company filed FAO-798-2013 challenging the quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding an excessive amount under various heads, thereby calling for reduction of the award.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT-CLAIMANT

[5] Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering, special diet and loss of amenities was on the lower side and not commensurate with the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the claimant. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not granting any amount on account of permanent disability, which adversely affected the claimant’s future prospects and promotional avenues. Learned counsel also argued that no compensation was awarded towards attendant charges and transportation expenses incurred during the course of treatment besides the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal was inadequate and deserved to be enhanced.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSE