High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/7139/2010disposed of

Mukti Chatterjee v. Sanjay Kumar And ORS.

2022-03-28Mr. Justice Arun Monga8 pages

FAO N o. 7139 of 2010 -1-

!"#"$%&%'()

* +( ',-." */&!%$"*/' '0

"# $ */' '0 1 CM No.10637-CII-2011

! %

! &

! '((%# ! !

) * ) + , *

#-#.(/ 00

0 0 -12.3'

-4 5

$ 5

& *& 05

6 & ,!

7 6 & 8/ 9

-:1 ! ;

-'11 & % <

0 ! 5

FAO N o. 7139 of 2010 -2- -:'! 0 < & !5

! 6 6 & & !5 ! !

$ 2 3 . 2%'' -- 4% 5 * . &"!!% '/&/4 + 1 6 7 5 )0

! !

! ! 0 & 6 ! & !

! 6 & !!

& &

% *& !

6 &

! 5 ;

#- #.(

& 5 !

! ! 5 &

6 & = 6 > 0 ! !

-(((((%# .3(((((% .

.3 -.

.((: 5 0& 5

## 5 +?#4##2.-4 !

> @ &

FAO N o. 7139 of 2010 -3A

B 0 0 6 B)#1 6 + > 0 &

0 #-2#.># ":"2 !

& 0

5 & 0 &

- !

+ 5 *

0 ! 6

5 C 6 &&

$ 0 !

D !

& 5 :(

! 0 ! 5 0

& !

& & -(

=$ 5 0 > 0 &

& ## 5 ! # .5 5

" "

& !!

- . & !

6 6 5

6 5 &

"#$ &!05 $5

- 5 0 !!

6 < 5 $ 5

FAO N o. 7139 of 2010 -4- 5 ! ! 5 0 ?

6 & !

!50 # E

!"#$# % &

'()) ! * & + &

* +

'()) # &

*+ '() #

F :

D !

issue No.1 is in favour of the claimant. While deciding issue No.3, it is held that the driving license Ex P-1 of respondent No.1 produced on record is not fake or fictitious. However, Tribunal observed that respondents No.1 to 2 since did not join proceedings, the route permit had not been produced and it was presumed that respondent No.2 was not having a valid route permit for plying the truck in Haryana. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the insured by initiating execution proceedings, without filing a separate suit. Under issue No.2, it assessed the compensation payable to the appellant as under: (a) For mental shock, pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- (b) Medical expenses Rs. 60,000/- (c) Special diet expenses Rs. 5000/-

FAO N o. 7139 of 2010 -5- (d) Transport expenses Rs. 5000/- Total Rs. 1,00,000/- ?

! 5 0 ! ! * 5 &

6 &

)

00 5

0 !!

! 0 & ! & !

& 0 * !

& 5 !

6 .3 -.

.((:

0 5 6 & 0

5 0 !

! 5!

& 04:

! 0 5

! 5& * 8 *. 9"*+ 8+! '# !2"*& 5& ".2% * '&3*! *3* !%' '# '!2"*1 68/3*"+"/*! &"& '

$ ! 0 0 ! !

! & 5 & 5!

! #

:%*!% '# '!2"* 5& *%"'! . '&/* '$" +3 '4 ;%+%!"#1 8/3*"+"/*! &"&66

FAO N o. 7139 of 2010 -6- -(

0 &

"<2 %'5& !%' .'&/* '$"+3 '4;%+%!"# '# !2"*&1 )8/3*"+"/*! &"&) -- D

! $ % "

6 & ! ! -(((((%#5

0 & -.

)

& -"

--! 0 5

"11. In this case, the petitioner has not proved the medical bills in the right perspective, despite the fact thatshe has suffered multiple grievous injuries. But it may be mentioned that in his statement, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced bills mark A-1 to A-7 which re to the tune of about Rs 26,000/-.In such type of cases, provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable. Further, in the statement of Satpal PW4 admission sheet Ex PW4/1 contained in seven pages have been proved and some of the pages are containing bills to the tune of about Rs. 30,000/-. One bill is Rs. 26,302/-. Another bill is Rs. 2026/-. One bill is Rs. 10,271/-. Normally all the bills are not kept preserved. In this way, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has at least incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-."

14.

Vide a separate application bearing CM No.10637-2011 vouchers Annexure A-1 to A-20 aggregating Rs.1,84,259.17/- have been taken on record in additional evidence. These vouchers were not before the learned Tribunal. Obviously, it

FAO N o. 7139 of 2010 -7could not take them into account while assessing the compensation for medical expenses. To my mind, these expenses evidenced by these vouchers ought to be added in determining the compensation payable for medical expenses. With that addition, the compensation under this head would come up to Rs.2,44,259.17 say Rs. 2,44,260/-. 15.

The learned Tribunal observed that the claimant had sustained multiple rib fracture on both sides, fracture of right maxilla and right lateral orbital wall fracture. She also suffered fracture right side nasal bone. Her nasal septum is deviated to right side. She also suffered some disfigurement of face. In my opinion, compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal for mental shock, pain and suffering and the disfigurement of face is on the lower side and it should be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-.

16.

The claimant remained hospitalised from 25.12.2006 to 02.01.2007 for treatment of multiple injuries suffered in the accident. After discharge from hospital, it would have taken her considerable time, say about two months, for full recovery and resumption of normal day to day activities. During this period, she was unable to do even her household work. In terms of money value for household work, by guesstimate her loss of income on this account is safely assessed at Rs. 15,000/-. The learned Tribunal did not take this factor into consideration. In my opinion, the claimant ought to be compensated for this loss as well.

17.

In the absence of any disability causing permanent loss/diminution of earning capacity of the claimant, no case is made

FAO N o. 7139 of 2010 -8out for award of compensation on that account. The contention to this effect advanced by the learned counsel for claimant is, therefore, repelled.

18.

As a result of above discussion, the claimant is held entitled to revised compensation as under:- (i) For mental shock, pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- (ii) Medical expenses Rs.2,44,260/- (iii) Loss of Income Rs.15,000/- (iv) Special diet expenses Rs.5000/- (v) Transport expenses Rs.5000/- Rs.3,05,760 19.

Accordingly, the amount of total compensation payable to the claimant is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs. 3,05,760/- alongwith interest at the same rate as already awarded by MACT i.e. 7.5% p.a. with effect from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment thereof. The impugned award is modified to that extent. The appeal stands thus disposed of.

*$2)1

*/' '0 /#0" A

%B A

& %B