IN THE HI 218 Makhan Singh Narpat Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, seeking enhan Motor Accide learned Tribun No.103 of 20 Vehicles Act, 1 2. submits that v appellant. It is accident in q amputated, d E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ingh Vs. gh & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3. Ms. Aakanksha, Advocate Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advo for respondent No.5. *** PTA, J. Present appeal has been f nhancement of compensation of cident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (here ribunal”) vide Award dated 03.04. f 2004filed by the appellant under ct, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “ Learned counsel for the at very meagre amount of compens It is submitted that the appellant in question due to which his fo , due to which he is rendered D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3434-2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ate ate dvocate en filed by the injured-claimant of Rs.17,353/- granted by the hereinafter referred to as “the .04.2008 passed in MACT Case nder Section 166 of the Motor as “the Act”). the appellant/injured claimant pensation has been granted to the ant had suffered a fracture in the is foot and left toe have been red permanently disabled. It is 5 nt he he en is SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document accordingly p appellant be e 3. Company opp that the appel an estimate has been bein injury of the a the said disab the appellant this effect has collision. It is t 4. 5. perused the ca 6. the basis of pl appellant had place on 06.10 bus bearing re offending veh respondent N ly prayed that the meagre main be enhanced. Learned counsel for opposes the prayer made on behal ppellant has suffered only 10% disab te as PW2/Dr. Gaurav Bishnoi has being given without seeing the X-ray he appellant. Moreover, there is no isability is permanent in nature. Ev ant that his foot has been amputate has been made in the plaint. More t is therefore, prayed that the prese No other argument is raise I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. Brief facts of the case are of pleadings and evidence adduced had received injuries in a motor v 6.10.2004 at about 5:30 pm due to ng registration No.RJ-10P-4087 (he vehicle’), being driven by res t No.2 and insured by responde maintenance so granted to the or respondent No.3/Insurance ehalf of the appellant and submits disability. Even the said disability is has stated that the said estimate ray and whole case history of the is nothing on record to show that . Even it has not been proven by tated and only a bare assertion to oreover, it was a case of head on resent appeal be dismissed. aised on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and are that the learned Tribunal on ced before it concluded that the tor vehicular accident that took e to rash and negligent driving of (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent No.1, owned by ondent No.3. Learned Tribunal 5 he ce its y is ate he at by to on SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document awarded com from the date 7. enhancement disability and amputated. H respondent In been mention seeing the X Even there is permanent in his foot has be this regard. (7.1) the appellant Tribunal. On a unable to eve hospital. The proven in acco the said medic (7.2) the appellant inches of his fo compensation as above along with ate of filing the claim petition till re Learned counsel for th ent of compensation on the groun and his left toe and 8 inches o d. However, as rightly pointed out t Insurance Company, the said dis tioned as an estimation byPW2/ X-ray and whole case history of e is nothing on record to show t in nature. Even it has not been p as been amputated and only a bare Further, a perusal of the re lant had failed to prove the medi On a direct Court query, learned even answer as to how many days he bills produced by the appellant accordance with law. Even no witn edical bills. Further, although in the p lant that he had suffered fracture his foot had been amputated, howe with interest @ 7% per annum ill realisation. r the appellant has sought round that he has suffered 10% es of his left foot have been out by learned counsel for the d disability of the appellant has W2/Dr. Gaurav Bishnoi without of the injury of the appellant. how that the said disability is en proven by the appellant that bare assertion has been made in he record of the case shows that edical bills before the learned ed counsel for the appellant is days the appellant had spent in llant were not exhibited and/or witness was examined to prove e plaint it has been pleaded by ure and that his left toe and 8 owever, admittedly, no evidence 5 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in support has it has not bee stated in his te without seeing on record to s nature or th considering th summary in n by the appell Tribunal had f pain and suffe of the appella before the lea he was earnin FIR in respect person. 8. referred to th statement on despite best passed:- has been produced by the appellan been denied that PW2/Dr. Gaurav is testimony that he has given disab eing the X-ray or the whole history to suggest that the disability of th that there was any amputation g the fact that the proceedings bef in nature, the learned Tribunal had pellant for a sum of Rs.4,853/- ad further awarded Rs.3,000/- for uffering. Even there is no informat ellant at the time of accident. It w learned Tribunal that he is illitera rning Rs.3,500/- per month. It is al ect of the accident in question was It may also be pointed the Lok Adalat where counsel fo on 08.05.2023 that he is unabl est efforts. Accordingly, on 08.05 “On the last date of hearing, a counsel for the appellant that h appellant despite best efforts, fre ellant. As already noticed above, rav Bishnoi, Medical Officer has disability of 10% to the appellant tory of the case. There is nothing f the appellant is permanent in ation of his toe or foot. Yet, before the learned Tribunal are had accepted the bills produced and Rs.2,500/-. The learned for disability and Rs.2,000/- for mation on record as to vocation It was the case of the appellant terate, and prior to the accident is also to be borne in mind that was registered against unknown ted out that the matter was el for the appellant had made a nable to contact the appellant 8.05.2023 following order was g, as it was stated by learned at he is unable to contact the s, fresh notice was ordered to be 5 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. circumstances of compensati 10. 15.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo issued to the appellant for today Memo of Parties. As per report o to the appellant has been receiv report that address is incomplete not traceable on the said add available on the file. Even learne states that he is having no other a the appellant. In view of the sam compromise in this appeal in Lo back to the Hon'ble High Court for Thus, keeping in view th nces as noticed above, no ground is sation. Present appeal accordingly Pending application(s) if a peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No oday at the address given in the ort of the Registry, notice issued eceived back unserved with the plete/incorrect and appellant is address. No other address is arned counsel for the appellant her address or conact number of same, there is no possibility of in Lok Adalat. The same is sent rt for adjudication.” the entirety of the facts and nd is made out for enhancement gly stands dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 5 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document