Partly allowed

Mangal Rai v. Jai Bhagwan and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2011FAO/2576/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 62,000 to Rs. 1,02,000 to account for permanent disability, post-operative care, and inadequate pecuniary awards for pain, suffering, and medical expenses following the amputation of three fingers.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,02,000 comprising Rs. 35,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 7,000 for medical expenses, Rs. 5,000 for miscellaneous expenses, and Rs. 15,000 for post-operative care, payabl

Mangal Rai Vs Jai Bhagwan and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO No.2576 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.2576 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:06.09.2011

Mangal Rai

...Appellant

Versus

Jai Bhagwan and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Shiv Narayan, Advocate for Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr.Sushil Sharma, Advocate for Mr.B.L.Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr.Vijay Garg, Advocate, for the Insurance Company.

¶14

-.-

¶15

JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J. (Oral)

¶16

CM No.12652 of 2009

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 152 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

Main Case

¶19

By way of the present appeal, the claimant/appellant has approached this Court seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 29.01.2009, on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident.

¶20

The facts leading to the present appeal are that on 12.6.2006

¶21

¶22

FAO No.2576 of 2010

¶23

when the claimant was returning from his work in a Canter bearing registration No.HR-38K-7854 met with an accident with a traula/trailer which was driven by respondent No.1 and due to which, three fingers of the left hand of the claimant were cut completely. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties awarded the compensation of `62,000/- alongwith interest @7 ½% to the claimant.

¶24

Feeling aggrieved by the award of the learned Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶26

case file.

¶27

From the perusal of the award, it emerges that the accident took place on 12.6.2006, in which, three fingers of the left hand of the appellant were amputated. As per disability certificate, Exhibit P2, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20%. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of 5,000/- towards medial expenses; 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and `2,000/- towards misc. expenses, which, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, appears to be on the lower side. Moreover, nothing has been granted to the appellant for postoperative care.

¶28

The appellant has lost three fingers i.e. fore-finger, middle finger and ring finger of his left hand, which will seriously affect his day to day working. As per the nature of injury, the injured required post operative care.

¶29

Keeping in view the above facts, this Court feels that the compensation granted deserves to be enhanced under the heads Pain & Suffering, Medical Expenses and Misc. Expenses. Accordingly this Court

¶30

FAO No.2576 of 2010 3 enhance the amount from 15,000/- to 35,000/- towards Pain and Suffering; 5,000 to 7,000/- towards medical expenses and 2,000 to 5,000/- towards misc. expenses. As nothing has been granted towards post operative care, I feel that granting of another sum of `15,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

¶31

The enhanced amount i.e. `40,000/- shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally in the manner indicated by the learned Tribunal within a period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of this period, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7½% per annum.

¶32

In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above.

¶33

06.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE

Mangal Rai v. Jai Bhagwan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Rai v. Jai Bhagwan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtar Singh Vs Jagdev Singh

Kulwinder Kaur Vs Savinder Kaur and Ors.

Bhupinder Handa Vs Sushma

Mahender Kumar Vs Dwarka Prasad

Jarnail Singh Vs Bachan Singh and Ors.

Yashpal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.