High CourtsSingle Bench(1993) 04 P&H CK 0020

Major Tarif Singh Ahlawat (Retd), Advocate vs The State of Haryana and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 7 April 1993 · Citation: (1993) 2 ACC 233 : (1994) ACJ 81 : (1993) 104 PLR 291

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Appeal from Order No. 413 of 1985

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 419 words

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—Major Tarif Singh Ahlawat filed a petition claiming Rs. 55,000/- as pecuniary compensation on account of permanent disability to the extent of 30% suffered in a vehicular accident involving bus of Haryana Roadways bearing No. HRX 1622 on the G.T. Road. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Kurukshetra, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal'') awarded Rs. 500/- on account of medicines, Rs. 500/- for loss of profession. Rs. 11,000/. on account of pain and suffering and mental agony and another Rs. 11,000/- on account of injuries, fractures and permanent disability to the extent of 30%. In all, a sum of Rs. 23,000/- was awarded as compensation with 12% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization of the said amount besides the costs of the petition which were assessed at Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved against the award, the claimant has filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2.

The challenge to the award is that the claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% and there are no chances of its recovery. The other plea is that compensation awarded under various heads is nominal.

3.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed civil miscellaneous seeking amendment of the grounds of appeal. Notice of the amended grounds of appeal was issued and the appellant was allowed to amend the grounds of appeal. In the amended grounds of appeal it was stated that the appellant had claimed before the learned Tribunal compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- and not Rs. 55,000/- but in the prayer clause of the grounds of appeal it was inadvertantly mentioned as Rs. 55,000/-.

4.

I have perused the paper book and considered the arguments of the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

5.

In this case, the accident is not in dispute and the disability of the claimant to the tune of 30% is duly established by the medical evidence. As such I am of the considered view that taking into consideration the extent of disability the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is not adequate. Consequently, the claimant is awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of medicines loss of profession permanent disability and pains and suffering with 12% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization. Out of the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- compensation already awarded is to be deducted.

6.

In view of the above, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above with costs which are quantified at Rs. 500/-.