Partly allowed

Surja Ram v. Satbir Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Oct 2011FAO/4662/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court allowed an enhancement of ₹25,000 under conventional heads and pain and suffering for multiple injuries. The order grants the sum with interest if not paid within 45 days, partly allowing the appeal to modify the award.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced amount of ₹25,000 granted under conventional heads and pain and suffering; to be paid within 45 days with 7.5% interest if delayed.

Surja Ram Vs Satbir Singh & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO No. 4662 of 2010 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO NO. 4662 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.10.2011

Surja Ram

....Appellant

Versus

Satbir Singh and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr.Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company.

¶12

¶13

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶14

CM No. 19787 CII of 2010

¶15

For the reasons enumerated in the application, delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

¶16

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

FAO No. 4662 of 2010

¶18

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short 'the Tribunal') on account of the injuries received by the appellant in the accident.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has granted inadequate compensation. In the alleged accident, the

¶20

FAO No. 4662 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶21

appellant had suffered multiple injuries including head injury. He remained hospitalised from 20.2.2009 to 8.3.2009. After discharge from the hospital, his treatment was going on. He suffered disability on account of alleged accident and resultantly, was unable to move. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of 2,17,000/- towards treatment expenses, 10000/- towards conveyance charges, special diet and attendant charges and ` 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which is on the lower side.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant and stated that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and adequate compensation to the appellant.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully.

¶24

From a perusal of case file, it emerges that due to the alleged accident, the appellant remained admitted for a period of 17 days i.e. from 20.2.2009 (the date of accident) till 8.3.2009. In this regard, he had produced bills Ex.P14 to Ex.P25 and the same were proved by PW2 Anil Kumar. He has not produced any disability certificate. A sum of ` 2,17,000/-, towards medical treatment expenses, has been awarded by learned Tribunal, which is just and adequate.

¶25

Further from the record, it emerges that he was awarded an inadequate amount of 10,000/- towards conveyance charges, special diet, attendant charges, and 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Appellant had received multiple injuries including head injury and remained hospitalised for 17 days. As per the nature of injuries, the appellant must have suffered

¶26

FAO No. 4662 of 2010 (O&M) 3

¶27

lot of pain. In this circumstance, this Court feels that the ends of the justice would be met, if an additional amount of ` 25,000/- under the conventional heads as well as the 'pain and suffering' is granted. Ordered accordingly.

¶28

The enhanced amount i.e. ` 25,000/- shall be paid to the appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the present appeal till, the payment is made.

¶29

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

¶30

the modification above.

¶31

4.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Surja Ram v. Satbir Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surja Ram v. Satbir Singh & 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

Major Singh Vs Narinder Singh & Ors.

Smt. Parkash Kaur etc. Vs Municipal Corporation Jalandhar

Amarjeet Kaur Vs Ranvir Singh and Anr.

Jagbir Singh Vs Manjit Kaur and Ors.

Jagbir Singh Vs Kirandeep Kaur and Ors,.

Parkash Vs Kul Bhusha @ Banti and Ors.