IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 Tarsem Sharma Rajeev Kumar CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-11799-CII condonation of delay of supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of condoned. MAIN CASE seeking enhanc IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Tarsem Sharma Vs. Rajeev Kumar & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CII-2018 This is an application under Section condonation of delay of 148 days in re-filing the appeal. After going through the contents of the application, supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 148 days in Present appeal has been filed by the injured seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.1, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3048-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate , Advocate This is an application under Section 151 CPC for filing the appeal. After going through the contents of the application, supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all days in re-filing the present appeal is has been filed by the injured-claimant ement of compensation of Rs.1,21,004/- awarded by the 6 for After going through the contents of the application, supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all filing the present appeal is claimant the SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Motor Accident Claims Tribuna Tribunal”), vide Award dated 01.02.2014 filed referred to as “the Act”). 2. basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the appellant/injured motor vehicular accident that took place on to the rash and negligent dri 6042 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 interest @ 7.5 3. compensation Rs.1,21,004/- serious and grievou question. It is submitted that after the accident, the appellant had remained hospitalised and even an implant was put in the back of the appellant. The appellant had also proved bills on file (Ex.C1 had incurred expenditure of Rs.1 lakh on his treatment. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as “the vide Award dated 11.02.2016 passed filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Brief facts of the case are that the pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the appellant/injured-claimant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration No. (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The above-said compensation was 7.5% p.a. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that in awarding meagre compensation of only -, the learned Tribunal has failed to take into account the serious and grievous injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident in It is submitted that after the accident, the appellant had remained hospitalised and even an implant was put in the back of the The appellant had also proved bills on file (Ex.C1 had incurred expenditure of Rs.1 lakh on his treatment. (hereinafter referred to as “the passed in MACT Case No.18 dated 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it claimant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 09.07.2013 at about 4 pm due ving of car bearing registration No.HR-08G- (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by said compensation was granted along with Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of by submitting that in awarding meagre compensation of only , the learned Tribunal has failed to take into account the s injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident in It is submitted that after the accident, the appellant had remained hospitalised and even an implant was put in the back of the The appellant had also proved bills on file (Ex.C1 to Ex.C13) and had incurred expenditure of Rs.1 lakh on his treatment. However, none of 6 (hereinafter referred to as “the MACT Case No.18 dated 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter unal on the pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it claimant had suffered injuries in a due - (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by along with Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of by submitting that in awarding meagre compensation of only , the learned Tribunal has failed to take into account the s injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident in It is submitted that after the accident, the appellant had remained hospitalised and even an implant was put in the back of the and However, none of SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document these facts have been taken into account while granting compensation to the appellant. temporary disability of 57%, which has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the compensation granted to the appellant be enhanced. 4. learned counsel for respondent No.3 no ground is made out to enhance the compensation awarded to the appellant. It is submitted that vehicle to be involved in the accident in question the driver of the offending vehicle had not been examined in the case as such adverse inference was drawn against him that the present appeal 5. 6. the case file in great detail. 7. the accident in question, the appellant had suffered multiple grievous and serious injuries. However, for the appellant, no information is forthcoming injuries suffered by the appellant these facts have been taken into account while granting compensation to the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant had suffered temporary disability of 57%, which has not been considered by the learned It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the compensation granted to the appellant be enhanced. Prayer of the appellant is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company by submitting that no ground is made out to enhance the compensation awarded to the It is submitted that the learned Tribunal held to be involved in the accident in question the driver of the offending vehicle had not been examined in the case as such adverse inference was drawn against him that the present appeal be dismissed. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the case file in great detail. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the accident in question, the appellant had suffered multiple grievous and serious injuries. However, despite repeated queries from learned counsel for the appellant, no information is forthcoming injuries suffered by the appellant. Even in the claim petition all that has these facts have been taken into account while granting compensation to It is also submitted that the appellant had suffered temporary disability of 57%, which has not been considered by the learned It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified and the compensation granted to the appellant be enhanced. Prayer of the appellant is vehemently opposed by Insurance Company by submitting that no ground is made out to enhance the compensation awarded to the the learned Tribunal held the offending to be involved in the accident in question only on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had not been examined in the case; and as such adverse inference was drawn against him. It is accordingly prayed No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. learned counsel for the parties and perused It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the accident in question, the appellant had suffered multiple grievous and despite repeated queries from learned counsel for the appellant, no information is forthcoming as regards the nature of . Even in the claim petition all that has 6 these facts have been taken into account while granting compensation to It is also submitted that the appellant had suffered temporary disability of 57%, which has not been considered by the learned It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified and Prayer of the appellant is vehemently opposed by Insurance Company by submitting that no ground is made out to enhance the compensation awarded to the ffending only on the ground that and It is accordingly prayed d It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the accident in question, the appellant had suffered multiple grievous and despite repeated queries from learned counsel regards the nature of . Even in the claim petition all that has SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document been stated by the appellant is that the offending vehicle had come and struck into the motorcycle on which the appellant and his daughter were riding due to injuries on their person. An ambulance 108 came at the spot by chance. The claimant and his daughter were taken to Civil Hospital and claimant was referred to PGI. The claimant and his daughter s car struck into the motorcycle. FIR was not lod no.1 and 2 committed to bear all the expenses and to compensate the claimant, but they failed to fulfill the promise. It is further alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. The motorcycle was driven by the clai correct side. Respondent no.1 Rajiv Sharma struck the car into the motorcycle by coming on wrong side. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital for sufficient period. Due to the accident, the claimant has become perma lot of pain and is still feeling inconvenience due to the injuries. whatsoever has been appellant. Even the mentioned. 8. that the appellant been stated by the appellant is that the offending vehicle had come and struck into the motorcycle on which the appellant and his daughter were riding due to which they fell down on the road and “... injuries on their person. An ambulance 108 came at the spot by chance. The claimant and his daughter were taken to Civil Hospital and claimant was referred to PGI. The claimant and his daughter s car struck into the motorcycle. FIR was not lod and 2 committed to bear all the expenses and to compensate the claimant, but they failed to fulfill the promise. It is further alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. The motorcycle was driven by the claimant at a very slow speed and on correct side. Respondent no.1 Rajiv Sharma struck the car into the motorcycle by coming on wrong side. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital for sufficient period. Due to the accident, the claimant has become permanently disabled and he is on bed. The claimant has suffered lot of pain and is still feeling inconvenience due to the injuries. whatsoever has been stated as regards the nature of injuries suffered by the Even the nature of permanent A perusal of the evidence led by the appellant the appellant had examined CW1 Dr. Arun Kapoor, who had deposed been stated by the appellant is that the offending vehicle had come and struck into the motorcycle on which the appellant and his daughter were which they fell down on the road and “...sustained multiple injuries on their person. An ambulance 108 came at the spot by chance. The claimant and his daughter were taken to Civil Hospital and claimant was referred to PGI. The claimant and his daughter suffered injuries because the car struck into the motorcycle. FIR was not lodged because the respondents and 2 committed to bear all the expenses and to compensate the claimant, but they failed to fulfill the promise. It is further alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. mant at a very slow speed and on correct side. Respondent no.1 Rajiv Sharma struck the car into the motorcycle by coming on wrong side. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital for sufficient period. Due to the accident, the claimant has nently disabled and he is on bed. The claimant has suffered lot of pain and is still feeling inconvenience due to the injuries...”. Nothing nature of injuries suffered by the nature of permanent disability etc. has not been A perusal of the evidence led by the appellant shows CW1 Dr. Arun Kapoor, who had deposed 6 been stated by the appellant is that the offending vehicle had come and struck into the motorcycle on which the appellant and his daughter were sustained multiple injuries on their person. An ambulance 108 came at the spot by chance. The claimant and his daughter were taken to Civil Hospital and claimant was uffered injuries because the ged because the respondents and 2 committed to bear all the expenses and to compensate the claimant, but they failed to fulfill the promise. It is further alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. mant at a very slow speed and on correct side. Respondent no.1 Rajiv Sharma struck the car into the motorcycle by coming on wrong side. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital for sufficient period. Due to the accident, the claimant has nently disabled and he is on bed. The claimant has suffered Nothing nature of injuries suffered by the not been shows CW1 Dr. Arun Kapoor, who had deposed SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 10.07.2013 and was discharged on 14.07.2013 and during hospitalisation the back side of the patient.” a Disability Certificate but the same appellant had produced medical bills (Ex.C1 to Ex.C13) Rs.66,004/-. As such, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation follows: – 9. appellant that the appellant had suffered disability of 57%, there is no evidence on record to support the said contention. Admittedly Disability Certificate has not been proved in accordance with law before the learned Tribunal deposition of CW1 Dr. Arun Kapoor regarding any disab temporary – categorically found by the l temporary disability of the claimant/injured Tarsem Sharma in the present case. Although at later stages, claimant has placed on file the disability that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 10.07.2013 and was discharged on 14.07.2013 and during hospitalisation the back side of the patient.” Although the appellant had brought on record a Disability Certificate but the same was not proved by the appellant. The appellant had produced medical bills (Ex.C1 to Ex.C13) . As such, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation Special diet – Rs.10,000/- Pain & suffering – Rs.25,000/ Attendant charges – Rs.10,000/ Transportation charges – Medical expenses – Rs.66,004/ Total - Rs.1,21,004/-. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had suffered disability of 57%, there is no on record to support the said contention. Admittedly Disability Certificate has not been proved in accordance with law before the learned Tribunal. Nothing has been pointed out to this Court in the deposition of CW1 Dr. Arun Kapoor regarding any disab suffered by the appellant. Rather to the contrary, it has been categorically found by the ld. Tribunal that temporary disability of the claimant/injured Tarsem Sharma in the present gh at later stages, claimant has placed on file the disability that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 10.07.2013 and was discharged on 14.07.2013 and during hospitalisation “implant was put on Although the appellant had brought on record was not proved by the appellant. The appellant had produced medical bills (Ex.C1 to Ex.C13) for an amount of . As such, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation as - Rs.25,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.66,004/- As regards the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had suffered disability of 57%, there is no on record to support the said contention. Admittedly, the Disability Certificate has not been proved in accordance with law before . Nothing has been pointed out to this Court in the deposition of CW1 Dr. Arun Kapoor regarding any disability - permanent or Rather to the contrary, it has been Tribunal that “...There is no permanent or temporary disability of the claimant/injured Tarsem Sharma in the present gh at later stages, claimant has placed on file the disability 6 that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 10.07.2013 and was was put on Although the appellant had brought on record was not proved by the appellant. The for an amount of as SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document certificate, but this document is not proved on the file. It is a settled proposition of law that disability certificate is to be proved on the file by examining the concerned doctor, but it is 10. 11. 30.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: certificate, but this document is not proved on the file. It is a settled of law that disability certificate is to be proved on the file by examining the concerned doctor, but it is not so in the present case....”. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No reportable: Yes/No certificate, but this document is not proved on the file. It is a settled of law that disability certificate is to be proved on the file by not so in the present case....”. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document