Anup Kumar vs State of Punjab and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar on an application u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, filed by claimant, who was 24 years of age at the time of accident, alleged to have taken place on 25th July, 1983, had awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him.

Aggrieved against the said award, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

In the instant case the only question is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

Admittedly, the claimant-appellant had received injuries in the accident which is alleged to have taken place on 25.7.1983. As per Doctor Rupinder Singh (PW-15), Lecturer, Christian Medical College and Brown Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana, the claimant-appellant was admitted in the Hospital on 25.7.1983 and discharged on 25.8.1983. According to this witness, the claimant-appellant had fractures of mandible besides the fracture of mandible besides the fractures of pelvis. This witness had further stated that inter maxillary wiring was done for his fractured mandible and that the said wiring was to remain intact for six weeks. It is also revealed from the testimony of this witness that after the discharge from the hospital, he was treated by doctor Satnam Singh (PW-17) a private practitioner. According to this Doctor, the fracture of the claimant-appellant was completely healed and only the treatment of diathermy massage, physiotherapy exercise and use of crutches was advised. The claimant in order to prove that he had incurred Rs. 10,000/- on his treatment, had produced receipt Exhibit P-16 showing payment of Rs. 1939.30PS. to the CMC authorities and receipt Exhibit P-15 vide which a sum of Rs.120/- was paid. While disposing of the claim petition, it was observed by the Tribunal in the award that the claimant had to undergo treatment for sufficient long time with regard to fracture of mandible and pelvis and he had to incur extra expenses for special diet. Taking into consideration of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant-appellant which includes Rs. 7500/- on account of special diet, Rs. 10,000/- far pain and suffering and Rs. 7,500/- for loss of business.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file. I am of the considered view that the claimant-appellant deserves higher compensation keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by him, long duration of his treatment which he had to undergo even after his discharge from the hospital and the age of the appellant who was 24 years at the time of the alleged accident.

Taking into consideration all the foregoing aspects, the claimant-appellant is now awarded Rs. 30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of business totalling Rs. 50,000/- with 12% interest from the date of claim petition. Out of the compensation awarded by this Court, the sum of Rs.25,000/- already awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is to be adjusted.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs.