IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232(2) Manpreet Sharma Rajeev Kumar CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. seeking enhanc 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 driving of car bearing registration No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manpreet 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. Present appeal has been filed by the injured seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as “the vide Award dated 23.12.2015 passed filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( 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. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3463-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate , Advocate has been filed by the injured-claimant of compensation of Rs.2,22,742/- awarded by the (hereinafter referred to as “the passed in MACT Case No.19 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 to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration No.HR-08G- 4 claimant the (hereinafter referred to as “the dated hereinafter Tribunal on the pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it claimant had suffered injuries in a due - SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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% per annum. 3. compensation by submitting that i Rs.2,22,742/- serious and grievous injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident in question. It is submitted that after the accident, the appellant had remained hospitalised bills on file (Ex.C1 to Ex.C72). However, these facts have account while granting compensation to the appellant. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award granted to the appellant be enhanced. 4. learned counsel for respondent No.3 no ground is made out to enhance the compensation amount. submitted that offending vehicle was question by the learned Tribunal only on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had not been examined was drawn against him. It i dismissed. (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent 1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The above-said compensation was % per annum. 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 question. It is submitted that after the accident, the appellant had emained hospitalised for long time. The appellant had also proved bills on file (Ex.C1 to Ex.C72). However, these facts have account while granting compensation to the appellant. 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 amount. submitted that offending vehicle was found to be involved in the accident in by the learned Tribunal only on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had not been examined; was drawn against him. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent 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 n 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 question. It is submitted that after the accident, the appellant had . The appellant had also proved medical bills on file (Ex.C1 to Ex.C72). However, these facts have not been taken into account while granting compensation to the appellant. It is accordingly be modified and the compensation Prayer of the appellant is vehemently opposed by Insurance Company by submitting that no ground is made out to enhance the compensation amount. It is found to be involved in the accident in by the learned Tribunal only on the ground that the driver of the and as such adverse inference s accordingly prayed that the present appeal be 4 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent 1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by along with Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of n 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 question. It is submitted that after the accident, the appellant had medical been taken into account while granting compensation to the appellant. It is accordingly be modified and the compensation Prayer of the appellant is vehemently opposed by Insurance Company by submitting that It is found to be involved in the accident in by the learned Tribunal only on the ground that the driver of the and as such adverse inference s accordingly prayed that the present appeal be SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. 6. the case file in great detail. behalf of the appellant. 7. account of injuries suffered by her. stated as to what injuries were suffered by the appellant. of the appellant Kapoor deposed that patient was admitted in Emergency Wing of PGI Chandigarh on 09.07.2013 and she had injury on right lower limb and lower back. She was admitted in 2 departments 27.07.2013 and from 13.08.2013 to 17.08.2013 by patient in from Orthopaedic expenses incurred by claimant in PGI Ex.C1 to Ex.C72 treatment comes to Rs.1,67,742/ awarded compensation in the following No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The claimant has claimed Rs.10 lakh as compensation on account of injuries suffered by her. However, it is nowhere as to what injuries were suffered by the appellant. of the appellant that she had suffered ‘multiple injuries. Kapoor deposed that patient was admitted in Emergency Wing of PGI Chandigarh on 09.07.2013 and she had injury on right lower limb and lower back. She was admitted in 2 departments 27.07.2013 and from 13.08.2013 to 17.08.2013 by patient in Neurosurgery Department is Rs.1 lakh only. CW2 Dr. Sampad Orthopaedic Department deposed on same lines. In order to prove expenses incurred by claimant in PGI, the medical Ex.C1 to Ex.C72 as per which the total amount spent by claimant on her treatment comes to Rs.1,67,742/-. As such, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation in the following manner: Special diet – Rs.10,000/- Pain & suffering – Rs.25,000/ Attendant charges – Rs.10,000/ Transportation charges – Medical expenses - ₹1,67,742/ No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused I find no merit in the submissions advanced on nt has claimed Rs.10 lakh as compensation on However, it is nowhere specifically as to what injuries were suffered by the appellant. It is the own case that she had suffered ‘multiple injuries.’ CW1 Dr. Arun Kapoor deposed that patient was admitted in Emergency Wing of PGI Chandigarh on 09.07.2013 and she had injury on right lower limb and lower back. She was admitted in 2 departments in PGI from 09.07.2013 till 27.07.2013 and from 13.08.2013 to 17.08.2013. The expenditure incurred Department is Rs.1 lakh only. CW2 Dr. Sampad Department deposed on same lines. In order to prove medical bills proved on file are total amount spent by claimant on her As such, the learned Tribunal had manner: - - Rs.25,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- ₹1,67,742/– 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused I find no merit in the submissions advanced on nt has claimed Rs.10 lakh as compensation on specifically It is the own case CW1 Dr. Arun Kapoor deposed that patient was admitted in Emergency Wing of PGI Chandigarh on 09.07.2013 and she had injury on right lower limb and lower 13 till . The expenditure incurred Department is Rs.1 lakh only. CW2 Dr. Sampad Department deposed on same lines. In order to prove bills proved on file are total amount spent by claimant on her As such, the learned Tribunal had SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. disability of the claimant. 9. enhance the impugned compensation. The dismissed. 10. 30.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Total – ₹2,22,742/-. Admittedly, there is no permanent or temporary disability of the claimant. In view of the above, enhance the impugned compensation. The Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Admittedly, there is no permanent or temporary ve, no ground is made out to enhance the impugned compensation. The present appeal is accordingly, Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 Admittedly, there is no permanent or temporary SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document