FAO against MACT Award denying enhanced compensation in a motor accident case. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere due to lack of evidence proving grievous injuries or additional treatment expenditure. Award of Rs. 5000/- upheld.
Claim for enhancement of compensation was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO No.855 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.855 of 2009 Date of Decision:01.07.2009
Maya Devi
....appellant
Versus
Nirmal Singh & Ors.
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli,Advocate for the appellant
RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.
This is claimant's appeal challenging the Award dated 18.11.2008 passed by MACT(Fast Track Court) Kurukshetra in MACT Case No.73 of 2008, on the ground of inadequacy of the compensation granted to her, for the injuries suffered by her in the motor vehicle accident while travelling in Bus No.PB-10AP-0677 due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.
On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal vide impugned Award held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PB-10AP-0677 by respondent No.1. However, while granting a total sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the appellant the Tribunal held that it was not proved that injury suffered by Maya Devi-appellant was grievous and found that she spent only a sum of Rs.1050/- on her treatment.
Challenging the impugned Award, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the compensation granted to the appellant by the Tribunal was inadequate and the same deserves to be enhanced to a respectable amount.
FAO No.855 of 2009
2
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned Award.
As per her own case, the appellant had a chest injury and was admitted in the Civil Hospital on 28.03.2006 and after treatment, was discharged on 30.03.2006 and she was charged an amount of Rs.1050/as per bill Ex.P-1. The appellant has not placed on record any other evidence to prove any other expenditure made by her on her treatment. She also failed to prove the injuries on her body. Thus, in the absence of any evidence brought on record in support of the case by the appellant, I find no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
01.07.2009 neenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the Tribunal's Award of Rs. 5000/- due to absence of evidence regarding grievous injuries and treatment expenditure.
Maya Devi
Nirmal Singh & Ors.
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
