Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nancy Bhalla vs Gurpreet Singh And Ors on 23 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1437 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.12.2022
Nancy Bhalla
......Appellant
Versus
Gurpreet Singh and others
......Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Present:- Mr. I.P.S. Bains, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Dishant Rishi, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the Award as passed
by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the
Tribunal') on 03.06.2000, whereby the appellant-claimant (here-in-after to
be referred as 'the claimant') has been awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,70,653/-, along-with interest @12% per annum, on account of the
injuries as suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident, she (claimant) has
preferred the present appeal for seeking the enhancement of the amount of
compensation.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the
filing of the instant appeal, are that the claimant moved a petition against
1 of 4
the respondents, who are the respective driver, owner and insurer of the Car
bearing registration No.CH-01-9550-T (for short, 'the offending vehicle'),
for claiming compensation of Rs.10 lac from them, while averring that on
24.08.1998, she was going to her house on the Scooter bearing registration
No.CH-01-P-8427 and when she was crossing the dividing road of Sector
38-A and 38-B, the offending vehicle came there from Vivek High School
side and it was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent
manner at a very high speed and it hit her Scooter. She suffered multiple
injuries, including fracture on her right leg, in this accident.
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their joint reply and respondent
No.3 filed its separate reply, contesting the claim of the claimant therein on
several grounds. The Tribunal put the parties to the trial by framing the
issues and after appreciating and evaluating the evidence as led by both the
parties on the record and hearing their learned counsel, the Tribunal has
allowed the claim petition and has awarded compensation to the claimant,
as already indicated in the opening para of this judgment.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant as well
as learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and learned counsel for
respondent No.3, in this appeal and have also perused the file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that
the amount of compensation, as granted by the Tribunal to the claimant
under various heads, has wrongly been calculated as Rs.1,70,653/- in the
impugned Award whereas this sum actually comes out to be Rs.1,79,653/-
and he has further contended that the Tribunal has erroneously declined to
2 of 4
award any compensation for the expenses incurred by the claimant to avail
the services of the attendant and on her special diet despite the fact that she
(claimant) had remained confined to the bed due to the multiple surgeries
as performed on her leg and therefore, she is entitled to the enhancement in
the amount of compensation on these counts.
6. Though learned counsel for the respondents have conceded the
factum of the wrong calculation of the total amount of compensation in the
impugned Award but they have argued that the claimant has already been
adequately compensated and hence, she has no occasion to ask for any
further enhancement in the amount of compensation.
7. As regards the contention qua the wrong calculation of the
total amount of compensation in the said Award, it is pertinent to mention
here that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- as the
transportation charges, Rs.74,653/- for medical expenses, Rs.60,000/- for
loss of salary/income, Rs.10,000/- towards the future expenses for the
corrective surgery and Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, to the claimant
and the total amount, so arrived, would be Rs.1,79,653/-.
8. So far as the compensation for the expenses incurred by the
claimant to avail the services of the attendant and on her special diet, is
concerned, it goes undisputed between the parties that she (claimant) had to
undergo surgery on four occasions for the fracture suffered by her on her
right leg, meaning thereby that she would have remained confined to the
bed due to this reason and therefore, she must have required the services of
the attendant and special diet and would have incurred the expenses for the
3 of 4
same. It being so, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the claimant as
compensation on both these scores.
9. Accordingly, the corrected/enhanced compensation, as would
be payable to the claimant, is worked out as under:-
Head Compensation Compensation Enhancement
awarded by awarded by this
the Tribunal Court
Correction in Rs.1,70,653/- Rs.1,79,653/- Rs.9,000/-
the calculation
of the Award
amount
Attendant's Nil Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
charges and
special diet
Net Rs.19,000/-
enhancement
10. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, the appeal in hand is
hereby allowed to the effect that the claimant is entitled to the net enhanced
compensation of Rs.19,000/-, over and above the amount of Rs.1,70,653/-,
as already awarded to her by the Tribunal and the said enhanced amount
shall carry the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the
claim petition till its actual realization and shall be payable to the claimant
in the same terms as mentioned in the impugned Award.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
December 23, 2022 JUDGE
pooja
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
4 of 4
