IN THE HI 234 Devender Kum Rajesh Kumar CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, seeking enhan Accident Claim Tribunal”) vide MACP Case N 166 of the Mo 2. the basis of p parties, came a motor vehic and negligen (hereinafter re The offending respondent N E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Kumar Mishra Vs. mar & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate Mr. Rajat Singla, Advocate for the appellant. *** PTA, J. Present appeal has been f nhancement of compensation of Rs laims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafte vide Award dated 17.03.2015pass e No.21 of 2014 filed by the appe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinaf Brief facts of the case are of pleadings and oral & documenta me to the conclusion that the appe ehicular accident that took place on igent driving of car bearing re er referred to as “the offending ve ding vehicle was owned by respo t No.3. The aforesaid compensa D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4941-2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ate en filed by the injured-claimant f Rs.46,000/- granted by Motor after referred to as “the learned passed in claim petition bearing ppellant/claimant under Section inafter referred to as “the Act”). are that the learned Tribunal on entary evidence adduced by the ppellant/claimant was injured in e on 22.06.2013 due to the rash g registration No.HR-12S-5080 g vehicle”) by respondent No.1. spondent No.2 and insured by ensation was awarded to the 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellant alon filing the petit and severally w 3. of compensat appellant had sufficient med appellant has by him in the At the time of suffered grea promotion or of 35 years on that the impu appellant be e 4. 5. perused the ca 6. the averment Sumit Kumar, R-6243, of h Pratap Chowk along with simple interest @ 7.5% petition till realisation payable by re ally with costs. Learned counsel for the ap nsation by submitting that in the had suffered 40% permanent disab medical evidence to prove this disab has become physically handicapped the accident and was placed in low of the accident, the appellant was reat career loss. Further, he wo or annual increment and would be s only, resulting in huge financial lo pugned Award be modified and th be enhanced. No other argument is made I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. Briefly stated, the claim p ents that on 22.6.2013, the appe ar, was going on the motorcycle be f his said friend, from Signature owk, Gurgaon. At about 6.15 P.M w .5% per annum from the date of by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly e appellant seeks enhancement the accident in question the disability. The appellant had led disability. It is submitted that the ped due to the injuries suffered lower category of employment. was only 24 years of age and has would not be entitled to any ld be retired on attaining the age al losses. It is accordingly prayed d the compensation paid to the ade on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and im petition has been filed with appellant along with his friend le bearing registration No.JH-02- ture Tower towards Maharana M when they reached at MDI U- 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document turn, suddenl being driven manner, came result of whic appellant rece parts of the bo HR-12S-5080 a the spot. The Gurgaon and a Delhi for furth 23.6.2013 und Lines, Gurgao being the dri vehicle at the compensation 7. 24 years old Gurgaon, gett to have susta claimed to ha Gurgaon; Rs. attendant and denly the offending car bearing re en by respondent No.1 at a high ame from behind and hit the moto which the appellant and his friend received multiple injuries on his le e body. The appellant noted the nu 80 and thereafter the driver of offe The appellant and his friend were nd after sometime the appellant w urther treatment in departmental a under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IP rgaon. Respondent No.1 being th driver and respondent No.3 bein the time of accident, are jointly tion amount to the claimant along At the time of accident, th old and was employed with Air getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per m ustained multiple injuries on his p o have spent Rs.4,00,000/- on his Rs.50,000/- on transportation; and stated that the treatment is g registration No.HR-12S-5080, high speed, rash and negligent otorcycle of the appellant, as a end fell down on the road. The is leg and right hand and other e number of offending vehicle as offending vehicle ran away from ere admitted in Max Hospital, was referred to Base Hospital, tal ambulance. FIR No.445 dated 8 IPC was registered at P.S Civil g the owner, respondent No.2 being the insurer of offending ntly and severally liable to pay ng with interest and costs. t, the appellant was stated to be Air Force Station, Sohna Road, r month. The appellant claimed is person. The appellantfurther his treatment in Max Hospital, ion; Rs.50,000/- on personal t is still going on. Therefore, he 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document claimed an a interest. 8. appellant as th been contend suffered 40% shows that in ‘fracture shaft corrected with There is nothi let alone any the appellant h the learned T Department (Ex.P1), summ Officer, who p permanent d documents w could not be t by Medical Bo reflects the sh As such, exce evidence on re n amount of Rs.70,00,000/- as co I find no merit in the as the same are not supported by th ended by the appellant that in the % permanent disability. Howeve at in the accident in question, th shaft distal 1/3rd tibia and fibula (r with closed reduction and internal fix othing whatsoever on record to rem any permanent disability suffered b ant had relied upon medical certifica d Tribunal. The appellant had exa nt i.e. PW3 Dilbagh Singh who p mmary of salary (Ex.P2); and PW4 S ho proved the medical certificates t disability of 40% has been as s were rightly discarded by the le be termed to be a “disability certific l Board; nor were they proved by e shortcomings on basis of which d except for the bald statement of t n record to prove any disability of t s compensation with cost and the contentions raised by the by the evidence on record. It has the accident in question, he had ever, a perusal of the record , the appellant had suffered a la (right), which was surgically al fixation plus interlocking nail.’ remotely indicate any disability ed by the appellant. In support, tificates (Ex.P4 and Ex.P5) before examined 2 witnesses from his o proved certificate of service 4 S. Chatterjee, Junior Warrant ates (Ex.P4 & P5) as per which assessed. However, the said e learned Tribunal as the same rtificate” as they were not issued by a medical doctor; nor same ich disability has been assessed. of the appellant, there was no of the appellant. 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. (Ex.P7), Max and as per Dis Hospital, Delh claimant was Rs.6,000/- wa medical treatm awarded to c follow up tre special diet. suffering, fru compensation S.No. Head 1. Medi 2. Expen 3. Expen 4. Pain, conse 5. Total 10. appellant had appellant had the learned Tr the Air Force month of Aug It is also pertinent to note ax Hospital charged a sum of Rs.5, r Discharge Slip (Ex.P8) the claiman elhi from 22.06.2013 to 08.07.2013 was free of cost in Base Hospital was awarded to claimant towa eatment and medicines. Further, a to claimant towards expenses incu treatment; and Rs.10,000/- tow iet. An amount of Rs.25,000/- frustration. As such, the le tion in the following manner:- ead of compensation edical expenses xpenses for transportation xpenses for special diet ain, suffering and trauma as onsequence of grievous injuries otal Further, there was noth had suffered any career loss. Ther had been demoted from his servic d Tribunal has recorded that the ap rce Department, as was evident August, 2014 (Ex.P2). The appellant note that as per Emergency Bill Rs.5,999.81/- from the claimant; mant remained admitted in Base 2013. However, the treatment of ital, Delhi so compensation of towards expenses incurred on er, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was incurred on transportation and towards expenses incurred on was awarded towards pain, learned Tribunal awarded Amount Rs.6,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- as a Rs.25,000/- Rs.46,000/- nothing to indicate that the There was no evidence that the rvice after the accident. In fact, e appellant continued to serve in ent from his Salary Slip for the llant also did not appear to have 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document suffered any alleged disabil 11. claimant was been admitte salary was de granted to him 12. or controvert t 13. case is made o the compensa and circumsta beneficial legi same cannot profit. Moreov market negoti Hon’ble Supre Others’ Law F Vs. Mahadev compensation bonanza nor a pittance. Thus ny adverse effects in his future c sability. It is also relevant that a as getting gross salary of Rs.29,258 itted by the claimant/PW1 in his s deducted against leave period h him under head of loss of earning Learned counsel for the ap ert the aforesaid facts and findings. Accordingly, in view of the de out that merits interference with nsation awarded to the appellant t mstances of the case. No doubt legislation yet, as cautioned by the not be allowed to be treated as reover, compensation awarded upo gotiation, where every penny has upreme Court in ‘State of Haryana aw Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Div deva Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, ha tion should be just and reasonab or a source of profit but at the sa hus, all that has to be determined i re career prospects due to his at as per salary slip Ex.P2 the ,258/- per month. It has further his cross-examination that no d hence no compensation was ing. e appellant is unable to dispute ngs. f the discussion above, I find no with the impugned Award. I find nt to be just and fair in the facts ubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the as a windfall or a source of upon mishap cannot be made a has to be calculated and drawn. ana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. has held that the amount of onable, it should neither be a e same time it should not be a ed in the facts of a given case is, 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document that the comp present case compensation Hon’ble Supre of this Court. Volume-II SCC sympathy, gen determining th 14. the impugned 15. 06.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo mpensation accorded is ‘just’. In case, the learned Tribunal has tion, which is in accordance with upreme Court and therefore, does n urt. In case of ‘KSRTC Vs. Susamm SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Co generosity and benevolence cann ng the compensation. Accordingly, I find no groun ned Award. In view of the above, pr Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No ’. In my considered view, in the has awarded a very ‘just’ with the law laid down by the es not warrant the interference amma Thomas & Others’ 1994 Court has held that misplaced annot be the guiding factor for round is made out to interfere in e, present appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document