Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1197 (PNJ)

SUSHIL KUMAR v. PARVEEN KUMAR

2016-04-26

DARSHAN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Darshan Singh, J. CM-5052-CII-2015 in FAO No.1708 of 2015 1. There is delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 2. Heard on the application. 3. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Main Appeals 1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of both the appeals mentioned above, as the same have arisen out of the same award dated 15.09.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'), whereby Sushil Kumar, the appellant-claimant in FAO No.1708 of 2015 has been awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,160/- and Chet Ram Singh, the appellant-claimant in FAO No.1710 of 2015 has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,64,201/- on account of the injuries suffered by them in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 07.12.2012. 2. Both these appeals have been preferred by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Sushil Kumar, appellant-claimant in FAO No.1708 of 2015 has been awarded a total sum of Rs. 29,160/- as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him. He has been awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of the pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life during the treatment, special diet and transportation, which is highly inadequate. 4. He further contended that similarly Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded to claimant Chet Ram Singh under all these heads, though Chet Ram Singh has suffered severe injuries and remained hospitalised for about 14 days. Thus, he contended that just compensation should be awarded to the appellants under all the heads. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Avtar, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration all the heads and has awarded the reasonable compensation. None of the appellants has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries received in this accident. So, no further enhancement is justified. 6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 7. Firstly, I take up FAO No.1708 of 2015 filed by appellant-claimant Sushil Kumar. He has been awarded a total amount of Rs. 29,160/- as compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. So, no further enhancement is justified. 6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 7. Firstly, I take up FAO No.1708 of 2015 filed by appellant-claimant Sushil Kumar. He has been awarded a total amount of Rs. 29,160/- as compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, special diet and transportation. Claimant Sushil Kumar has suffered fracture of his left foot and other injuries on various parts of his body in this accident. So, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be considered only towards pain and suffering alone. In addition to that, claimant Sushil Kumar shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5000/- towards transportation charges and Rs. 5000/- towards attendant charges. In this way, the amount of compensation awarded to appellant-claimant Sushil Kumar is enhanced by Rs. 15,000/- making the total amount of Rs. 44,160/- (29,160 + 15,000). 8. In FAO No.1710 of 2015, appellant-claimant Chet Ram Singh has been awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,64,201/- as compensation. He has also been awarded a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities during the period of treatment, special diet and transportation etc. Claimant Chet Ram Singh has suffered multiple injuries on various parts of his body including his face. He received treatment from General Hospital, Jind and Asian Hospital, Faridabad. He has undergone surgery with respect to his facial injury. So, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under non-pecuniary heads is highly inadequate. Appellant-claimant Chet Ram Singh shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 5000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5000/- towards transportation charges and Rs. 5000/- towards attendant charges. In this way, the amount of compensation awarded to appellant-claimant Chet Ram Singh is enhanced by Rs. 30,000/- making the total amount of Rs. 3,94,201/- (3,64,201 + 30,000). 9. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, both the appeals are hereby partly allowed. Appellant-claimant Sushil Kumar shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 44,160/- instead of Rs. 29,160/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Appellant-claimant Chet Ram Singh shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,94,201/- instead of Rs. 3,64,201/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 9. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, both the appeals are hereby partly allowed. Appellant-claimant Sushil Kumar shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 44,160/- instead of Rs. 29,160/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Appellant-claimant Chet Ram Singh shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,94,201/- instead of Rs. 3,64,201/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appellants-claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate as determined by the learned Tribunal, on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the petition till realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced amount shall remain as determined by the learned Tribunal in the main award.