Jasveer Singh @ Bagga Singh v. Fumman Singh And ORS

FAO-3141-2018 (O&M) - 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118-2 FAO-3141-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Jasveer Singh @ Bagga Singh ...Appellant(s) Vs.

Fumman Singh and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4-Insurance Co.

*** NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been .led by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensa3on of Rs.95,500/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short "the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 31.10.2017 passed in MACP Case No. 13 dated 13.01.2016 .led under Sec3on 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 par3es concluded that the appellant had su?ered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.08.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Maru3 Zen bearing registra3on No. DL6CH-2134(hereinaCer referred to as "the o?ending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2 and 3; and insured by respondent No.4. The above said compensa3on was awarded along with

FAO-3141-2018 (O&M) - 2interest @ 9% per annum. All the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensa3on. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensa3on by submiGng that learned Tribunal had accepted the Claim Pe33on partly and awarded a meagre sum of Rs.95,500/- as compensa3on. It is submiHed that in the accident in ques3on, appellant had received serious and grievous injuries. The appellant had also su?ered fractures and was operated upon for his leC leg and nail was inserted. Appellant had incurred cost of Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment and huge amount is required for his future treatment. It is further submiHed by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had duly examined Dr. Y.K. Chaudhary as PW4 who stated that appellant was admiHed in his hospital on 15.08.2015 and he had fractures of both bones on leC leg. The appellant was operated upon 16.08.2015 and interlocking nail leC 3bia was done on 16.08.2015 and he was discharged on 21.08.2015. Appellant tendered into evidence medical bills amoun3ng to Rs.43,117/-. It is submiHed that accordingly, the compensa3on awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 4.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant had also examined Dr. Rishad Bishnoi as PW2 who proved the permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 6% on account of pain due to fracture of leC 3bia. However, Ld. Tribunal has considered the disability to be temporary and awarded Rs. 12,000/- towards disability while discarding the evidence of PW2 who stated that the disability is of permanent nature.

FAO-3141-2018 (O&M) - 35. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as regards avoca3on, appellant stated that he was working as a driver to ply car, van, jeep on calling and was earning Rs.700/- per day. However, Ld. MACT has allowed Rs.10,000/- only towards loss of income on the premise that as the appellant has not su?ered any permanent disability and thus, it can not be held that he is unable to do any work due to disability. Ld. MACT has lost sight of the fact that he was operated upon for his leC leg and even nail is inserted and thus, it can not be expected by any stretch of imagina3on that he will ply the vehicle as with the aid of leC leg, any vehicle can be plied. Thus, loss of earnings should have been awarded properly. 6.

It is further submiHed that Ld. MACT has also failed to appreciate that appellant was only 26 years of age at the 3me of accident and one more opera3on is required to remove the nail and thus, the appellant should have been granted reasonable amount towards future expenses to be incurred towards the treatment, opera3on etc. 7.

It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa3on be enhanced.

8.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the impugned Award su?ers from no in.rmity as the compensa3on awarded to the appellant is just and fair. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9.

No other argument is raised on behalf of the par3es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case .le in great detail. I .nd no

FAO-3141-2018 (O&M) - 4merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant.

10.

As per the Disability Cer3.cate Ex.P1 proved by PW2 Dr. Rishad Bishnoi, appellant had su?ered permanent disability of 6%. It is the conten3on of the appellant that the said disability has been wrongly taken to be temporary by the learned Tribunal. However, learned Tribunal has categorically recorded that PW2 in his cross-examina3on has stated that the said disability can be reduced in 3me aCer union of fracture and nail is removed surgically. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had awarded Rs.12,000/- (i.e. Rs.2,000/- per percent of the disability). A perusal of the record reveals that PW2 has stated in his cross-examina3on that disability men3oned in the disability cer3.cate "...... is for parcular limb. Disability can be reduced if aer union of fracture and nail is removed surgically. ......" On a direct Court query, learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to con.rm as to whether appellant has undergone any further surgery/treatment or not; and what is the current state of disability of the appellant. Thus, appellant is not en3tled to any future medical expenses either. 11.

It was further pleaded case of the appellant that prior to the accident, he was working as a private driver and earning Rs.700/- per day; and that he is unable to follow his profession as he has become permanently disabled. However, appellant had failed to produce any evidence on record to substan3ate his said claim. It has also come on record that appellant had remained hospitalized from 15.08.2015 to 21.08.2015. Accordingly, Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earning. Appellant had

FAO-3141-2018 (O&M) - 5further produced medical bills Ex.P17 to Ex.P46 for total amount of Rs.43,117/-. Learned Tribunal had accordingly awarded Rs.43,500/- towards medical expenses; thereby gran3ng total compensa3on of Rs.95,500/-. Accordingly, ld. Tribunal awarded compensa3on in the following manner:- Sr.

No.

Par:cular of Heads Amount 1.

Medical bills Rs.43,500/- 2.

Disability Rs.12,000/- 3.

Loss of earnings Rs.10,000/- 4.

Pain and su?erings Rs.20,000/- Conveyance and special diet Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.95,500/- 12.

From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensa3on has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensa3on granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a bene.cial legisla3on yet, as cau3oned 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 compensa3on should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of pro.t but at the same 3me it should not be a piHance. 13.

Accordingly, I .nd no error in the compensa3on awarded by the learned Tribunal. The present Appeal stands dismissed.

FAO-3141-2018 (O&M) - 614. Pending applica3on(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 09.02.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No