Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1273 (PNJ)

Bala Devi v. State Of Haryana

2004-11-19

S.S.SARON, V.M.JAIN

body2004
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the Award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident. 2. While considering the question regarding grant of compensation to the claimant appellant Smt. Bala Devi, it was found by the Tribunal that as per the disability certificate Exhibit P10, issued by the Board of Doctors, constituted by the General Hospital, Karnal, Smt. Bala Devi claimant had suffered 2% permanent disability on account of fracture of pelvis. It was also found that the claimant had not examined any medical officer, nor produced any record with regard to her admission in General Hospital, Karnal and the duration thereof. However, keeping in view the disability certificate Exhibit P.10, it was found that claimant Smt. Bala Devi had suffered fracture of pelvis as a result of which she suffered 2% permanent disability at the age of 35 years and that she was a household lady. It was found that she had spent Rs. 4,613/- on medicines. Taking all these facts into consideration, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 30,000/-as compensation to the claimant on account of the injuries suffered by her in the accident. Since the claimant was not satisfied with the amount awarded to her by the Tribunal, she filed the present appeal in this Court. 3. Since the appeal filed by the appellant was barred by time, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of 268 days delay in filing the appeal. Notice in this application was given to the other side and the application has been opposed. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in our Counsel, which resulted in delay of 268 days in filing the appeal nor any case is made out on merits for enhancing the compensation amount awarded to the appellant. 5. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it has only alleged that she had suffered injuries in the accident and was still under the treatment of the doctors and was unable to even walk without help. 5. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it has only alleged that she had suffered injuries in the accident and was still under the treatment of the doctors and was unable to even walk without help. It was further alleged that she had contacted her counsel in the Trial Court, who had assured her that he would get the appeal filed before this Court for enhancement of compensation and got the relevant paper signed by her along with expenses and that on further inquiry the counsel in the Trial Court had informed her that appeal had been filed but no date of hearing had been fixed so far. It was alleged that after 4-5 months i.e. in the month of October, 2003, she again inquired about the fate of her case and the counsel in the Trial Court had informed her that the date of hearing would be communicated to her after inquiring from the counsel in the High Court and when she did not get the required information about the date of hearing till February, 2004, she suspected the conduct of her counsel in the Trial Court and thereafter, she contacted an Advocate in the High Court, who after making inquiry told her that no such appeal had been filed in this Court and thereupon, she personally contacted the counsel in the Trial Court and after getting the papers, she got the appeal filed in this Court, through her counsel, which resulted in delay of 268 days. In our opinion, this story given by the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of 268 days delay in filing the appeal, cannot be accepted in the absence of any further proof, especially when nothing has come on the record to show as to what action had been taken by her against the counsel in the Trial Court, who allegedly played fraud upon her (as per the allegations made by her in the application). Furthermore, the appellant has not filed the affidavit of the counsel in the Trial Court to support the allegations made by her in this regard. Furthermore, the appellant has not filed the affidavit of the counsel in the Trial Court to support the allegations made by her in this regard. Taking all these facts into consideration, in our opinion, the applicant-appellant has failed to show that any sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay of 268 days in filing the appeal, especially when the certified copy of the Award dated 17.3.2003 was applied on 27.3.2003, prepared on 29.3.2003 and was delivered on 19.4.2003, whereas the appeal in this Court was filed after almost one year i.e. on 12.3.2004. 6. Even otherwise, on merits, as referred to above, there is no merit in this appeal. As referred to above, the appellant had suffered only 2% permanent disability as per the disability certificate Exhibit P10. She had failed to examine any doctor with regard to her admission in the hospital and its duration. Only the photocopy of the MLR mark A was produced on the record, showing that she had suffered one incised wound on the right side of the hip and two bruises. Even as per the oral evidence, Smt. Bala Devi appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for 1-1/2 months and thereafter, she remained confined to bed in her house. Taking all these facts into consideration, in our opinion, the Tribunal had rightly awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the claimant and no case for enhancing the compensation is made out on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.