FAO-3435 IN THE HIG 226-A Kuldeep Kau Hardeep Sin CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. claimant see awarded to learned Mot bearing MA Section 166 2. attention of Tribunal in p book) which 35-2017 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA FAO Date o ep Kaur Versus ep Singhand others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. CS Singhal, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate f Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate fo I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present nt seeks enhancement of compensa to her vide impugned Award date Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, g MACT Case RBT No. 50 dated 1 n 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Learned counsel for the ap on of this court to the observations al in para No. 15 of the impugned Aw which reads as follows:- “15. The learned counsel for claimant suffered permanent d account of accident. At the sam to any reason. CW-4 Dr. Aman Thind Eye Hospital. She when c patient was treated by Dr. Sa Accordingly to prove said concerned was required to be she stated that it is possible th ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3435-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 .…Appellant .... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA e for ocate for the appellant. cate for respondents No. 1 and 2. resent appeal the appellant/injured pensation amount of ₹3,58,228/- rd dated 13.12.2016 passed by the nal, Hoshiarpur, in a claim petition ated 12.08.2015/ 02.06.2016 under t, 1988. he appellant-claimant draws the ations as recorded by the learned ed Award (at page 21 of the paper- for claimant has argued that the ent disability of the eye sight on same time, it does not stand good mandeep has been examined from en cross-examined stated that the . Sangeet Mittal and not by her. id aspect of disability, doctor o be examined. At the same time le that diabetes can be the reason ured the ition nder the rned he on od m he er. or me on RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.13 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-3435 3. learned Trib accordingly Tribunal for 4. case is rema the matter in parties to tak law. 5. on 22.04.20 6. learned Trib Judge, Hosh construed as 7. 8. 11.02.2026 rishu 35-2017 (O&M) -2- of the present disease. She did blind, whereas she stated that when there is no opinion o regarding the impairment of th diabetes can be the reason of p of learned counsel for claiman reason.” It is submitted that no final fi d Tribunal in respect of the above gly prayed that the matter be rem al for re-consideration of the above as In view of the factual position remanded back to the learned Trib atter in the light of above noted facts. to take the pleas before the learned The parties are directed to appe 026. Registry is directed to send a co d Tribunal concerned through the le , Hoshiarpur. However, nothing sta ued as an expression of opinion on the Disposed of, accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable did not state that patient is 100% that her vision is not 100%. So on of any concerned authority of the eye sight and as per CW-4 of present disease, the arguments imant does not stand good to any inal finding has been given by the above aspect of the matter. It is be remanded back to the learned ove aspect of the matter. osition as noted above, the present d Tribunal concerned to reconsider facts. Liberty is also granted to the arned Tribunal, in accordance with o appear before the learned Tribunal d a copy of this order be sent to the the learned District and Sessions ng stated here-in-above shall be on the merits of the matter. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No % So ity 4 ts ny the It is rned sent r the with unal the ions be RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.13 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.