SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. SHERA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the cases are connected and they arise out of the same accident that occurred on 20.08.1997.

(2.) FAO No. 1936 of 2000 is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation. The Tribunal had reasoned that the petitioner could not produce any original bills and there was evidence to the effect that he was working in the place where rules allowed for reimbursement. He was Junior Technician in Engineering College at Bathinda. At the trial, he stated that he was originally admitted in the Civil Hospital at Abohar and later transferred to DMC Hospital at Ludhiana. He also stated that he remained on bed for four months but again offered no evidence about the period of hospitalization and the treatment that was accorded to him. I have no better details even in the grounds of appeal. It has been urged that he had spent Rs. 2 lakhs for medicines, operation fees and doctor charges and also spent about Rs. 50,000/ - more towards other expenses. I cannot provide for any compensation towards medical expenses without offering any evidence. I have again no material to suggest that there was any particular injury and that he had taken treatment in any hospital. If he had been originally admitted in Abohar and later transferred to DMC Hospital at Ludhiana, I will make a modest assessment of Rs. 2,000/ - for transport and provide for another Rs. 3,000/ - towards trauma for the suffering that he must have undergone. The compensation shall be Rs. 5,000/ - with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. The right of enforcement shall be available against the Insurance Company. The award of dismissal is set aside and the appeal in FAO No. 1936 of 2000 is allowed to the above extent.

(3.) THE Tribunal observed that even the rough estimate was suspicious. The engine and chassis numbers had been interpolated later and the document did not bear the clear nexus about the damage to the vehicle owned by the claimant.