Munni v. Rajesh And ANR

FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) - 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Munni ...Appellant(s) Vs.

Rajesh and another

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant.

*** NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been (led by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensa0on of Rs.42,618/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Charkhi-Dadri (for short "the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 22.03.2023 passed in MACT Pe00on No. 125 dated 31.05.2016 (led under Sec0on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the par0es concluded that the appellant had su=ered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.12.2015 at about 04:15 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of an Alto Car bearing registra0on No. HR-19D-0605 (hereina?er referred to as "the o=ending vehicle") being driven and owned by respondent No.1; and insured by respondent No.2. The above said compensa0on was awarded along with

FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) - 2interest @ 9% per annum. All the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensa0on. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensa0on by submiDng that learned Tribunal had awarded meager amount of compensa0on by ignoring that in the accident in ques0on, appellant had su=ered mul0ple injuries including fracture of leg. In this regard, learned Tribunal has ignored the evidence on record and awarded less amount of compensa0on for medicines and hospital bills. AdmiGedly, appellant had remained hospitalized for more than 6 days, but the learned Tribunal had awarded very less amount of compensa0on under the head of special diet and pain and su=erings and the same is liable to be enhanced to the tune of Rs.10 lacs as per the evidence on record. Learned Tribunal had not applied mul0plier and future prospects to the loss of income. Nothing has been awarded for future medical expenses and treatment.

Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.50 lacs under the said heads. Nothing has been awarded for loss of income during treatment. Interest @ 9% per annum is on the lower side and it should be 18%. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa0on be enhanced in above terms.

4.

No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case (le in detail. I (nd no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

5.

It was the own pleaded case of the appellant that at the 0me of accident, appellant was 45 years old and used to do household work and

FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) - 3was also making equipment of agriculture and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. The appellant has further pleaded that in the accident in ques0on, she has su=ered su=ered severe & mul0ple injuries over her body including fracture of le? (bula, B/L knee, leg ankle and right full skull. On account of le? leg fracture, she is unable to sit & walk swi?ly and has become permanently disabled and has to get assistance of an aGendant for performing her daily pursuits. Now, she has become permanently disabled, and her future income has been decreased to a great extent. 6.

However, despite the above far-fetched claims made by the appellant, no medical evidence was brought on record to show that appellant had su=ered any permanent disability. It has been admiGed by learned counsel for the appellant that neither Disability Cer0(cate, nor any Medical OJcer who had declared the appellant to be permanently disabled, was produced by the appellant. Appellant was unable to prove either her injuries; or even her alleged income or avoca0on. Appellant had also failed to show any documentary proof regarding alleged loss of income. Appellant had only brought on record Follow-Up and Discharge Card Ex.P1 issued by PGIMS, Rohtak, as per which appellant had remained hospitalized for 6 days from 04.12.2015 to 09.12.2015. Ld. Tribunal had accordingly awarded compensa0on in the following manner:- Sr.

No.

Par7cular of Heads Amount 1.

Bills for purchase of medicines and hospital bills etc. (Mark-A3 to Mark-A7) Rs.5,618/- 2.

06-Days Hospitaliza0on / Transporta0on and AGendant Rs.15,000/-

FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) - 4charges 3.

Special diet, pain and su=erings and all other heads Rs.22,000/- Total amount of Compensa7on Rs.42,618/- 7.

From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensa0on has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensa0on granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a bene(cial legisla0on yet, as cau0oned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of pro(t. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur" Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and "Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva She)y and another" (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensa0on should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of pro(t but at the same 0me it should not be a piGance. 8.

Accordingly, I (nd no error in the compensa0on awarded by the learned Tribunal. The present Appeal stands dismissed. 9.

Pending applica0on(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 09.02.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No