JASPAL SINGH Vs. AMAN KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation. Jaspal Singh, the claimant suffered injuries in a roadside accident that took place on 5.5.2007. The claim petition brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation in a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs has been allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 1.9.2011 in a sum of Rs. 95,777/ -. In the accident that took place on 5.5.2007, the claimant suffered injuries. He suffered fracture of his left arm and ribs on the left side of the chest. He was taken to Kohli Hospital, Jagadhri where he remained admitted upto 21.5.2007. His left arm was operated upon and a T -plate was fixed in his left arm. Claiming that he was continuing with the treatment till the filing of the petition, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs is claimed to have been spent on the treatment including special diet and transportation charges. He has claimed that one more operation is to be conducted in his case for removal of the T -plate. He has also claimed that he is an agriculturist and on account of the injuries, he remained bedridden for months together and has been unable to do his day to day work. He suffered huge financial loss on account of the injuries. He is still unable to look after his land. He has claimed that he has become permanently disabled. Hence, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs has been claimed as compensation.

(2.) THE respondents have resisted the claim petition. They have denied the injuries, treatment, expenses in the treatment and other allied aspects of the claim made by the claimant. They have denied the claimant to have spent Rs. 2 lakhs in his treatment. They have denied the claimant to deserve a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation. Hence, the claim petition is prayed to be dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is an agriculturist. According to him, 15% disability to an agriculturist would mean serious disability because that would hamper the agricultural work of the claimant. According to him, not only humerus, his left ribs were also fractured and the claimant suffered lot of pain for which learned Tribunal has not adequately compensated him. He has further submitted that loss of income during treatment is awarded for two months while in such cases, more than three months are taken in recovery. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has taken into account the bills of Rs. 46,777/ - and did not allow a fraction of it as compensation for the expenses incurred without obtaining bills. According to him, learned Tribunal has wrongly added special diet and expenses on transportation in the aforesaid amount because the said amount is only for the expenses on treatment.