Partly allowed

Neha v. Surender and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2012FAO/3196/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an oral judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana condoned a 34-day delay in filing an appeal. It enhanced compensation for permanent injuries, scarring, and loss of marriage prospects and academic year, granting Rs.1.5 lacs towards pain and suffering.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs towards pain and suffering, loss of academic year, and loss of marriage prospects was granted.

Neha Vs Surender and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.3196 of 2008 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.3196 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:24.4.2012

Neha Singal

....Appellant

Versus

Surender and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellant

¶12

Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶15

CM No. 18134-CII of 2008

¶16

Despite sufficient opportunity, no reply has been filed by the respondents.

¶17

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶18

Main appeal

¶19

The present appeal has been filed by the injured-appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 8.3.2008, on account of the injuries suffered in a road accident on

¶20

FAO No.3196 of 2008 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

20.1.2006.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the injured remained admitted in hospital from 20.1.2006 to 4.4.2006. She was operated upon and after discharge, she visited the hospital for post operative treatment. He further submits that the appellant has suffered a deep permanent scar on her neck, which has considerably reduced the prospects of her marriage. He further submits that she had to suffer loss of one academic year, as she was preparing for PMT examination. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, special diet and transportation etc., which is inadequate.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- Insurance Company has submitted that just and adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶25

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

¶26

From the perusal of the record, it emerges that the appellant suffered multiple grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 20.1.2006. She was about 18 years of age at the time of accident. As per the testimony of PW1 Dr.Sandeep Aggarwal, Consultant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgeon, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, the appellant suffered multiple injuries. Bilateral clavicle was noticed. X-ray chest showed that there was multiple rib fracture right side with bilateral fracture clavicle with opacities both lung fields. CT Scan of chest showed the bilateral pneumothorex with contusion and consolidation with right side multiple fracture with surgical

¶27

FAO No.3196 of 2008 (O&M) 3

¶28

emphasema with fracture right side scapula. As per the opinion of this witness, these injuries are possible in a road side accident. She suffered scare on the neck, which has reduced her marriage prospects. She remained hospitalised from 21.1.2006 to 4.4.2006. Even after discharge, she had to remain bed ridden for a long period. She had also taken post operative treatment. Thus, she must have suffered agonising pain and mental agony. She has suffered loss of one academic year. She was at a crucial stage of her career and was likely to marry after a few years. Deep scare on neck is likely to adversely affect the marriage prospects. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, this Court grants another sum of Rs.1.5 lacs towards pain and suffering, loss of one academic year, loss of marriage prospects and all other conventional heads.

¶29

The enhanced compensation amount i.e. Rs.1.5 lacs shall be paid to the injured -appellant, in the manner indicated in the impugned Award, within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellant shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal till its realisation.

¶30

In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent.

¶31

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶32

24.4.2012 gsv

Neha v. Surender and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neha v. Surender and Anr.

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

Prem Devi and Ors. Vs Santokh Singh and Ors.

Kirpal Singh Vs Poonam and Ors.

Anuj Vs Joginder Pal and Ors.

Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Rattan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Chhaju Ram & Anr. Vs Hasan Deen & Ors.