Gurdev Singh vs Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal by Gurdev Singh, the claimant for enhancement of compensation. Gurdev Singh suffered injuries in a roadside accident that took place on 30.11.2008. He has filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, "the Tribunal") allowed the claim petition vide award dated 31.5.2011 in a sum of Rs. 1,20,264/-. Gurdev Singh suffered fracture of both the bones of his right leg. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Nabha but was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. He was admitted there. He was operated upon and locking plate was inserted in his right leg. The claimant suffered permanent disability of his right leg. He has spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in his treatment. He had been taking special diet as well for recovery from bony injuries and a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs is claimed as compensation.

The aforesaid averments have been denied by the respondents. They have denied the extent of injuries suffered by the claimant or his having any permanent disability. His expenses in his treatment are also denied and he is denied to deserve 10.00 lakhs as compensation.

Learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs. 1,20,264/- against respondents no. 1 and 2 excluding the Insurance company. He has allowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, a sum of Rs. 12,681/- for medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 9,333/- for loss of income, a sum of Rs. 750/- for attendant charges, a sum of Rs. 2,500/- for diet charges and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for loss of amenities of life.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the claimant had suffered two fractures of his right leg. According to her, he was operated upon and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the name of loss of income during treatment, attendant charges and special diet charges are on a very lower side.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the amounts awarded are already on the higher side. According to him, the claimant does not deserve any other amount in the name of compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not tell the court as to what was the loss of amenities of life for which a big amount of Rs. 75,000/- has been allowed by learned Tribunal. It is a case where there was no disability left on the person of the claimant. He had suffered fracture of both bones of his right leg for which nailing was done and there was no disability left in this case. In the absence of any permanent disability having been left on the person of the claimant, there could be no compensation for loss of amenities of life. However, some amount can be said to have been due to the claimant under the heads, loss of income during treatment, attendant charges and special diet charges. That enhancement cannot even come to Rs. 75,000/- which the claimant was not entitled to, but was awarded by learned Tribunal. In these circumstances, there being no appeal filed by respondent no. 1, the claimant has already been awarded compensation on a higher side. I find no merit in the appeal and, consequently, dismiss the same.