IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 28, 2025 Joyson ......Appellant Vs.

Om Parkash and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent-Insurance Co.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 28.02.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant to the tune of Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of injuries suffered by the appellant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on

30.11.2005.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted.

Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the award indicates that the appellant suffered injuries and was treated in PGI, Chandigarh and remained admitted for 20 days. Thereafter, he took treatment from Mission Hospital, Ambala City and Sanjivani Hospital, Ambala. His admission in the Sanjivani Hospital was duly proved by PW2 Dr. Manmeet Singh. He remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f 21.12.2005 to 24.12.2005. However, nothing was charged from him being poor person. The expenses incurred on his treatment were borne by the Bellever Church in India.

7. A perusal of the award further indicates that the appellant suffered injuries. However, he has not suffered any permanent disability, as no document in this regard was produced by him. But keeping in view the injuries suffered by the appellant, the amount awarded to the appellant under the conventional head is liable to be enhanced, as per latest law.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 S