← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/1490/2000dismissed

Ajay v. Surinder Etc.,

2015-02-12Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta2 pages

FAO No.1490 of 2000 (O&M) 

     FAO No.1490 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision:12.02.2015 Ajay

.Appellant

Versus

Surinder and others

.Respondents      

Present:

Mr. G.S. Bawa, Advocate the appellant.

Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No.4/ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

  1.

The appeal was filed against the award dated 7.12.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (Tribunal for short). Compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000// was granted to the appellant for the injury received by him in an accident which took place on 18.6.1995, which was found inadequate. 2.

Counsel for the appellant argued that disability to the extent of 45% had occurred on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident but the Tribunal did not compensate him adequately for that. He further contended that expenses for the attendant, special diet were also on the lower side.

3.

Counsel for the Insurance Company, however, argued that sufficient amount was awarded by the Tribunal as all aspects were covered. Treatment expenses were given though no medical bills or receipts were produced. An amount of Rs.3000// was awarded for attendant and any equal amount for special diet. An amount of Rs.5000// was given for pain and suffering. The amount was, thus, adequate. The arguments are convincing. ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2015.02.16 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

FAO No.1490 of 2000 (O&M) 4.

An amount of Rs.75,000// was given to the appellant for the injuries received in an accident which occurred in 1995. The value of money at that time and at the time of passing award was manifold as compared to the value today. The award is not wanting in any of the aspects discussed by the Tribunal. Interest to the tune of 12% per annum was given as long back as in 1999 whereas now interest is awarded at the rate of 6% per annum. The appellant should have been happy with what he got because the Tribunal did not pull back its hand while granting compensation.

5.

The appeal is dismissed.

                12.02.2015 Ishwar

 ! "!#$ " % "" &!#" '#"! " ( ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2015.02.16 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document