Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 951 (HP)

Narender Kumar v. Jagdish Chand

2016-05-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral): This appeal is directed against the award, dated 17th May, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.3-S/2 of 2009, titled Narender Kumar vs. Jagdish Chand and others, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.59,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The insurer, the owner and the driver have not questioned the impugned award, therefore, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 4. Thus, the only controversy needs to be settled in this appeal is – Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate? The answer is in the negative for the reason that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is adequate, rather is on the higher side. 5. Claimant-injured, namely, Narender Kumar, on 25th July, 2007, sustained injuries in the accident, which was caused by the driver, namely, Vinod Kumar, while driving Mahindra Pick Up bearing registration No.HP-16-2108, rashly and negligently. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 25th July, 2007 to 31st July, 2007. The claimant suffered injury on his nose, which was treated by the ENT Department. The injury has not affected the earning capacity of the claimant-injured, as has been reported by the doctor. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal has made discussion in paragraphs 11 to 16 of the impugned award and I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the assessment. Accordingly, it is held that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate, needs no enhancement. 6. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.