Sajeb Ali v. Purkan And Others
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 07.11.2025 Sajeb Ali ...Appellant
Versus
Furkan and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:
Mr. Vikram Rana, Advocate for the appellant.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Claim pe00on under Sec0on 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensa0on on account of injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident, filed by appellant - Sajeb Ali was partly accepted by learned Tribunal on 27.07.2023, allowing compensa0on of ₹4,88,000/-. 2.
By way of the main appeal i.e. FAO-1257-2024, appellant prays for enhancement. The appeal is accompanied by CM-5011-CII-2024 to condone the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal. 3.
It is stated in the applica0on that applicant was not able to come out of the shock a=er the accident. Besides, he was not aware about the procedure for filing appeal for claiming enhancement in the compensa0on. It is also the conten0on that appellant could not arrange funds for approaching the counsel at the High Court and that all this has caused delay of 125 days.
4.
The accident had taken place way back on 17.08.2018 and therefore, it is absolutely not believable that appellant was s0ll under the shock of the accident in 2024 when this appeal has been filed, par0cularly when, he had already approached the Tribunal by filing the claim pe00on in 2018 itself. As such, his conten0on that due to shock of the accident, he could not file the appeal in 0me, is not believable. 5.
Similarly, the conten0on that appellant was not aware about
[2] the procedure for filing the appeal for seeking enhancement or that he was unable to arrange funds, are also hard to believe for jus0fying the delay in filing the appeal.
6.
Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the applica0on so as to condone the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal and as such, applica0on stands dismissed.
7.
Though the appeal deserves to be dismissed being barred by limita0on, as has been noted above, but even if it is considered on merits, the appeal is found to have no substance.
8.
As found by learned Tribunal, an amount of ₹2,15,952/- was spent by the appellant-claimant on the expenses for his medical treatment. The said amount is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. 9.
For claiming the enhancement, the conten0on raised by learned counsel is that only an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded towards loss of income and that no amount has been awarded for 10% disability.
10.
There is no merit in the conten0on.
11.
It is no0ced that learned Tribunal has taken into considera0on the fact that pe00oner remained hospitalized for almost 35 days and so, considering the nature of injuries and fractures suffered by him, he must have taken four months for proper recovery and therefore, by taking the no0onal income of the injured claimant to be ₹10,000/- per month, he has been awarded compensa0on of ₹40,000/- for loss of earnings. 12.
Learned counsel for the appellant conceded the fact that there is no evidence on record, except the bald statement of the claimant that he was earning ₹30,000/- per month, as was pleaded in the pe00on. As such, there is no scope for enhancement in the compensa0on under the head of 'loss of income'.
[3] 13.
As far as, the disability is concerned, it has been found that 10% disability was only temporary in nature. As per the cer0ficate, 5% disability was qua pain and suffering, whereas 5% disability was for s0ffness. There was no shortening of the limb. The disability was only temporary, which was to reduce with the passage of 0me through treatment and physiotherapy.
14.
In these circumstances, the amount of ₹1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, mental distress, discomfort and inconvenience is found to be quite reasonable, which also includes the amount for temporary disability. No separate amount was liable to be granted under the head of 10% temporary disability, which was to reduce with the passage of 0me, as per the evidence on record. 15.
No other point has been urged.
16.
Considering the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any ground so as to enhance the compensa0on amount. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed being barred by limita0on, and also on merits.
07.11.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No