Shri Nachhattar Singh vs Shri Karnail Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

CM No. 30425-CII of 2012

There is a delay of 184 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents do not want to file any reply to the application for condonation of the same. Rather, they do not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. In these circumstances, for the reasons given in the application, delay of 184 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands allowed.

Main Appeal

This is an appeal brought by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 3.2.2012 in an accident that took place on 28.3.2010. The appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as compensation.

Since the prayer in the appeal is for enhancement of compensation and there is no other question involved in the same, I do not find it necessary to reproduce the averments of the parties made in the petition and the reply. It would be sufficient to say that the claimant claimed to have suffered multiple fractures on his foot and claimed himself to have remained hospitalized from 28.3.2010 to 13.4.2010.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal did not even consider the fact that the claimant remained hospitalized from 28.3.2010 to 13.4.2010 and he had produced his discharge card and other documents which at least showed that he had fractures. According to him, in these circumstances, a sum of Rs. 9000/- assessed as compensation is not adequate.

Learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the claimant did not prove on record any X-ray report nor had he proved on record any expenses incurred in the treatment. According to them, in these circumstances, compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- is adequate for his injuries.

It is true that the claimant could not put on record any thing other than a discharge card. The only other document is copy of test report and copy of x-ray slip which does not prove any thing except the fact that he was directed to undergo X-ray examination. However, his discharge card is there on the record which notices that there was a crush injury on his right foot. The other fact that comes out clear on the record is that he remained hospitalized for about 13 days. So, the crush injury of the right foot and hospitalization for 13 days would show that the appellant must have suffered pain even thereafter. In these circumstances, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 2,000/- for special diet and another sum of Rs. 2,000/- as miscellaneous expenses appears to be too inadequate. Taking into account the aforesaid circumstances, I find that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- at least should have been awarded as compensation to the appellant for his injuries as proved by discharge card itself. Consequently, I allow the appeal and enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.