IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 Sarwan Kumar ......Appellant Vs.

Jai Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

*****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27.03.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimants/appellants to the tune of Rs.15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 14.09.2003.

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 is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends:-

i) That the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.

ii) That the appellant/claimant was 20 years old; was doing tuition work and was also running a milk dairy and thereby used to earn Rs.7,000/-per month, at the time of accident.

iii) That the appellant/claimant had received fracture injuries, due to accident and he remained hospitalized for more than 20 days and the learned Tribunal negligently ignored and erroneously reached to the conclusion that no fracture injury was received by the appellant/claimant.

iv) That the amount awarded towards pain and suffering and medical treatment is on lower side. Further contends that no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of special diet, transportation charges, loss of income, loss of amenities and attendant charges.

Therefore, the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-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 shows that the appellant/claimant was a student of 10+2 and was stated to be earning Rs.7,000/- per month but no evidence was led on record to prove the same and moreover, he could not withstand the cross-examination of the opposite party. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant/claimant was earning Rs.7,000/- per month.

7. Further perusal of the award shows that the appellant/claimant was stated to be permanent disabled due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident but no such medical certificate/treatment record was led on file to prove the same, even a single document showing any fracture was not produced. In the absence of above said evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant/claimant had become permanent disabled due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. But the fact that he had suffered some injuries on his person cannot be ignored as he had produced MLR and the medical bills which shows that he had suffered some injuries on his person. Thus, the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant/claimant under the conventional heads, which he was entitled to. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

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,