FAO-2225-2018(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 FAO-2225-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Pardeep ….Appellant Versus Amar Chand & ors. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.3. NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-8371-CII-2018 1. Prayer in this applicaon filed under 151 CPC is for condonaon of delay of 70 days in refiling the appeal. 2. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 70 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM-8372-CII-2018 1. Prayer in this applicaon filed under 151 CPC is for condonaon of delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. 2. For reasons menoned in the applicaon, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensaon of Rs.63,700/- awarded by the MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-2225-2018(O&M) 2 learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 19.04.2017 passed in MACP Case No.22 of 2015 dated 10.07.2015 filed under Secons 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina;er referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the pares concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 14.05.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing Registraon No.HR-55T-3880 (hereina;er “the offending vehicle”); being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensaon of Rs.63,700/- was awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents No.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensaon; however, respondent No.3 Insurance Company has been granted recovery rights against respondents No.1 and 2. 3. A perusal of the Order Sheets shows that right since the incepon of the present appeal, there has been no representaon on behalf of the appellant. Even noce of moon was issued in the absence of ld. counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal being of the year 2018, the same is being heard and decided in the absence of learned Counsel for the appellant. 4. A perusal of the Grounds of appeal shows that appellant has sought enhancement of compensaon on the ground that the appellant had duly proved on record that he had suffered injuries on his head and various parts of his body. However, learned Tribunal has ignored the MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-2225-2018(O&M) 3 medical evidence produced by the appellant in this regard. The Tribunal has ignored that the appellant stayed admiHed in Hospital ll 14.05.2015 to 16.05.2015 due to the seriousness of the injuries suffered by him. Even therea;er, the doctor had instructed the appellant to rest at home due the injuries. The appellant had spent Rs.5.00 lacs on his treatment, medicines, doctor fees etc. However, only an amount of Rs.26700/- has been reimbursed to the appellant for medical expenses, which is on the lower side. The Tribunal has also failed to consider that at the me of accident, the appellant was only 25-years-old and was working at a photo- framing/photo-laminaon shop and was drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/-. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensaon be enhanced. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has opposed the asserons made by the appellant in the present Grounds of Appeal and submits that the appellant has been unable to prove the alleged injuries suffered by him in the accident in queson. The appellant has failed to examine any doctor to prove the documentary medical evidence adduced by him. It is submiHed that in this circumstance, just and fair compensaon has to be awarded to the appellant, which requires no interference. 6. No other argument is raised on behalf of respondent No.3. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in minute detail. 7. A perusal of the record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that in the accident in queson, the appellant had “received injuries on his head, MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-2225-2018(O&M) 4 chest, ribs and hands and legs”. To prove his injuries, the appellant had appeared as PW-1 and had deposed in favour of his case while also stang that he had remained admiHed at Cygnus Hospital, Karnal, from 14.05.2015 to 16.05.2015. Therea;er, he remained an outdoor paent and he has spent Rs.5.00 lacs on his treatment. However, a perusal of the MLR dated 14.05.2015 Ex.P-1 shows that in the accident in queson, the appellant had suffered ear and nasal bleeding. As per the discharge summary Ex.P-2, the appellant was admiHed on 14.05.2015 and discharged on 16.05.2015. As per the test report dated 14.05.2015 Ex.P- 3, the appellant had suffered “ head injuries with fracture with outer table of frontal sinuses etending into the ethmoid sinuses”. The discharge summary also shows that the appellant has shown gradual improvement and had been discharged in a stable condion. 8. However, all of the above said documentary evidence is of no help to the appellant as he had failed to examine any doctor to prove the nature of injuries suffered by him or even the medical evidence produced by him. In this situaon, the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.15000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5000/- for special diet; Rs.5000/- towards costs of transportaon; Rs. 26700/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the bills/receipts Ex.P-4 to P-12 produced by the appellant for an amount of Rs.26700/-. AdmiHedly in the accident in queson, appellant has not suffered any permanent disability. 9. Further, the appellant had failed to prove his alleged avocaon of photo framing/laminaon and Rs.20000/- as income. Thus, Tribunal had taken income of the appellant as Rs.6000/- per month as MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-2225-2018(O&M) 5 that of unskilled worker; and had granted a sum of Rs.12000/- under the head of loss of income; thereby granng total compensaon of Rs.63700/-. 10. It is also necessary to point out that in respect of the accident, in queson, an FIR No.209, dated 14.05.2015, was registered under Secons 279, 337 & 304A of IPC, at Police Staon Gharaunda, Karnal, against respondent No.1-Amar son of Virender Singh. In the said FIR, respondent No.1 has been acquiHed by learned Addional chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide judgment dated 17.12.2019. Para 17 of the said judgment reads as follows:- “It was for the prosecuon to prove the charge against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt by adducing cogent evidence. In this process the prosecuon has examined eight witnesses in all. Out of them PW1 to PW5 examined by the prosecuon are police officials who proved the steps taken during the invesgaon of the present case. They are only formal witnesses and they were not present at the spot when the alleged accident took place. PW6 is Dr.Rakesh Dua, who proved injuries sustained by deceased Virender and Pardeep. From their tesmonies, accused cannot be connected with the commission of offences in any manner. Rest of witnesses are PW7 Pardeep who is injured and PW8 Sube Singh who is alleged eye witness in this case. They both did not support the case of the prosecuon and were declared as hosle on the request of learned APP for the State. The learned APP for the State was allowed to cross- examine these witnesses but from the cross-examinaons of these witnesses nothing incriminang against the accused could be extracted by the learned APP for the State. The star witnesses of the prosecuon did not support the story. MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-2225-2018(O&M) 6 Keeping in view their statements, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the present case. Resultantly, the prosecuon failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and the accused is entled to be acqui4ed in the present case.” 11. A perusal of the above shows that respondent No.1 has been acquiHed as the appellant namely Pardeep while appearing as PW-7 in the said criminal case has not supported the case of the prosecuon and was declared hosle. 12. In view of the discussion above, I find no error in the compensaon as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 13. Pending applicaon(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) 16.02.2026 JUDGE monika i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh