Balwinder Singh Mann vs Jasbir Singh

Rakesh Garg, J.—This is claimant''s appeal challenging the impugned Award and seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

The appellant suffered injuries on 21.06.2010 in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 of the offending vehicle owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3.

Appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 35 lakhs pleading that he suffered grievous injuries on the various parts of his body and has spent more than Rs. 2 lakhs on his treatment in Fortis Hospital, Mohali, where he was taken after the accident. According to the appellant, he remained as an indoor patient for a long period and his whole business of agriculture, dairy farming and gym was badly effected.

The Tribunal allowed the claim petition holding that the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the said amount from the date of institution till the realization of this amount payable by the respondents jointly and severally.

A perusal of the Award would show that the appellant was Awarded a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- as medical expenses keeping in view the medical bills (Ex. C2 to C32), Rs. 10,000/- were awarded due to pain and sufferings, Rs. 2500/- as transport charges and Rs. 2500/- on account of special diet. Further, Rs. 20,000/- were granted towards the permanent disability of 10% as per the certificate produced by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that compensation granted to the appellant is on the lower side as he has suffered for a long time and remained in hospital where he was operated upon. Appellant has further raised grievance that he has not been given any compensation toward loss of income for the time during which he remained in hospital. Moreover, his income was also assessed on lower side.

The arguments raised are misconceived and liable to be rejected outrightly.

Though appellant has claimed that he was doing agriculture and was running gym, thus, was earning monthly Rs. 50,000/-, yet failed to produce on record any documentary evidence to support the aforesaid averments made on behalf of the appellant.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the stand taken by the appellant has not been rebutted by the respondents. However, claim of the appellant cannot be accepted on the basis of his bald statement as if he was earning a huge amount, he must be paying the income tax. No such document has come on record. Not only this, if the appellant is running the gym, he must be issuing receipt to his customers. No such record has been produced. Even appellant has not given any description with regard to agricultural land allegedly cultivated by him.

It may further be noticed that though he has produced certificate with regard to his permanent disability to the extent of 10%, it could not be disputed that he had received an injury on the right side of neck for which plastic surgery was done. Even the medical certificate issued by the Doctor at Ropar does not inspire the confidence of this Court as the said document does not show that Doctor has issued certificate after examining the appellant clinically. Thus, the certificate issued is without any basis.

A perusal of the bills produced by the appellant with regard to his treatment would show that he has made payment to the Fortis Hospital, Mohali vide bill dated 29.6.2010, a total sum of Rs. 1,88,246/-. Out of the aforesaid amount Rs. 40,500/- is the rent paid as room charges.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope of enhancement in the compensation payable to the appellant in this case.

Dismissed.