AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.—In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Insurer has assailed the Award dated 30.8.2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Claim Petition No. 19-S/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Renu vs. Shri Shamsher Singh Thakur & others.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference in law or equity is made out in the present case.
On 22.5.2008, on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle (car) bearing No. HR-03Q-0086, owned by Rakesh Goyal, claimant Smt. Renu (respondent No. 1 herein), aged 30 years, sustained injuries. She was admitted in the hospital for medical treatment from 22.5.2008 up to 30.5.2008. Apparently she sustained injuries on her foot. Resultantly she filed a petition claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs. In terms of the impugned award, Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) plus interest thereupon @ 7.5 % per annum.
Claimant/respondent No. 1 (PW-1) through her testimony has proved the factum of occurrence of accident; suffering injuries as a result thereof and having undertaken treatment from Dr. Sanjay Aggarwal at Sai Sanjivini Hospital. It also stands established through her testimony that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. That the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurer is not in dispute.
Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurer has argued that there is no proof of claimant having sustained fracture on her leg. Hence, compensation awarded for medical expenses is on the higher side.
In Court claimant has clearly established having sustained injuries as a result of the accident. Though there is no medical record with regard to surgery conducted by Dr. Sanjay Aggarwal (PW-3), but however, he has proved that claimant remained admitted in his hospital between 22nd May, 2008 and 30th May, 2008 and thereafter she was treated as an outdoor patient. Medical record (Ext. PW-3/A) is on record to this effect. Also I find that Sh. Tek Chand, husband of the claimant has also supported her version.
In my considered view, amount of compensation so awarded in terms of the impugned award cannot be said to be on the higher side. It is within the settled parameters of law and as such does not require any interference. The impugned Award cannot be said to be perverse, illegal, erroneous or contrary to the settled principles of law.
For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.