Dismissed

Kishani v. Rashid Khan and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2023FAO/1895/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of accident compensation from Rs.20,000 to Rs.20,00,000 and increased interest. Finding the original award just and fair based on evidence, the Court held no interference was warranted under Chapter-12 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also condoned a 218-day delay.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 218-day delay allowed; Appeal against compensation award dismissed; Pending application disposed of.

Kishani Vs Rashid Khan and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:042325 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 251 FAO-1895-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.03.2023

Smt. Kishani

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rashid Khan & Others ...Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶8

Present:Mr. Mandeep Singh Kundu, Advocate for the appellant. ***

¶9

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶10

CM-5556-CII-2018

¶11

This is an applica�on under Sec�on 5 of Limita�on Act, 1963 for condona�on of delay of 218 days in filing the appeal.

¶12

A*er going through the contents of the applica�on, the same is allowed subject to all just excep�ons.

¶13

MAIN CASE

¶14

Present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensa�on of Rs.20,000/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (hereinaer referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 29.01.2018 passed in MACT Case/CIS No.137 of 2016 filed under Sec�on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinaer referred to as “the Act”).

¶15

Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that claimant/appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 06.02.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of trolla bearing registra�on No.RJ-02GA-6412 (hereina*er referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. Learned Tribunal awarded compensa�on as above along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the pe��on �ll realisa�on. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensa�on.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensa�on inter alia on the ground:

¶17

SUNENA 2023.03.29 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

2023:PHHC:042325 2

¶19

a) that the appellant is en�tled to Rs.20,00,000/- on account of injuries and disability suffered by her in the accident in ques�on. It is submiCed that the appellant had produced ample oral as well as documentary evidence in support of her case. However, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- vide the impugned Award;

¶20

b) that the appellant had spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- on her treatment and nothing has been granted to her for period of hospitalisa�on;

¶21

c) that the appellant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from agriculture and dairy farming and “remained out of work for sufficient long period due to injuries suffered by him.”;

¶22

d) that treatment of the appellant is s�ll going on and therefore, impugned Award deserves to be modified/enhanced;

¶23

e) that interest has been granted @ 7% whereas the same should be @ 18% per annum.

¶24

No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶26

a) Perusal of record of the case shows that the appellant was travelling in a bullock cart which was hit by the offending vehicle. It was the pleaded case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that said bullock cart was also damaged in the accident and even a buffalo had died due to injuries sustained in the accident. However, learned Tribunal in para 20 of the impugned Award has found that the claimant(s) “..have also not produced any documentary evidence for proving that their bullock-cart was damaged in the accident in ques!on.” Learned Tribunal also found that no challan was filed by the police for offences punishable under Sec�ons 427 and 429 of IPC;

¶27

b) As regards the appellant, her pleaded case before the learned Tribunal was that she remained on bed for three months and spent Rs.2,00,000/- on medicines and Rs.50,000/- on special diet. However, Exhibit P7/treatment record of the appellant, depicts that she was admiCed in PGIMS, Rohtak from 06.02.2016 to 09.02.2016. As per bills (Exhibit P12 and Exhibit P13), SUNENA2023.03.29 16:31appellant had spent Rs.662/- for purchasing medicines. Even no other bill I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

2023:PHHC:042325 3

¶29

regarding medical expenses was proved by her. Keeping in view these facts, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensa�on.

¶30

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as no�ced above, I find the compensa�on awarded by the ld. Tribunal to be just and fair. There is nothing on record, and even nothing has been shown to this Court to prove or support the case as set out by the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legisla�on yet, as cau�oned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. All that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensa�on accorded is ‘just’. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensa�on, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore does not warrant the interference of this Court. In case of KSRTC Versus Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensa�on.

¶31

In view of the above facts, I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Present appeal accordingly, stands dismissed. 9. Pending applica�on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶32

22.03.2023 Sunena

¶33

(Nidhi Gupta) Judge

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶35

SUNENA 2023.03.29 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kishani v. Rashid Khan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishani v. Rashid Khan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhbir Singh and Others Vs Surmukh Singh and Others

Deepanshi Bansal and Ors. Vs Vikas and Ors.

Ajay Kuamr Vs Salim Khan and Ors.

Sandeep Bhatia Vs Leenu

Harpreet Kaur Vs Gurjant Singh

Adarsh Parmar Vs Vikas Parmar