JAI SINGH Vs. CHARANJITLAL MANCHANDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the injured -claimant, who has sought to seek enhancement of compensation already awarded to the tune of Rs. 85,000/ - by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat through award dated 7.2.2003 Since the factum and mode of the accident has not been in any manner agitated and, thus, the quantum of compensation is the sole point that needs to be resolved. Admittedly, on 28.3.1999 around 2 p.m. while claimant was going on his motorcycle, offending Maruti car bearing No. DL -6CD -9537 owned and being driven by respondent No. 1 -Charanjitlal Manchanda in a rash and negligent manner struck against the motorcycle of the claimant in the area of Panipat, resulting in injuries to him. On account of non -availability of the complete original record which stood destroyed in the fire that engulfed the record, the matter is being disposed off on the basis of the record that has been reconstructed. It is very well come in the statement of the claimant himself that after the accident he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Gohana and, thereafter, referred to PGI, Rohtak, where he remained hospitalised for three and a half months. Thereafter, the claimant took treatment from private hospital. The claimant claimed that he was operated twice. It has been rightly argued by the counsel for contesting respondent No. 2 that the onus lay upon the claimant to establish entitlement of compensation. Though, the claimant as P.W. 1 claims to have spent Rs. 1,50,000/ - on his treatment but needs to establish it so to the satisfaction of the Court. No doubt, bills Ex. P2 to Ex. P100 and his disability certificate Ex. P101 lead to some material inference as to the disability to the extent of 70% i.e. 30% of the eye and 40% of the limb. The claim of the claimant that he was selling milk or as to his earning and loss has not been materially and documentarily established and so his treatment. However, it needs to be prima facie accepted that the medical treatment bills show that the claimant has spent Rs. 35,707/ - on the medicines. The learned Tribunal had observed that the claimant has been unable to furnish material on the file to enable the Tribunal to assess the compensation and had in the interest of justice made a rough estimation, whereby, it has allowed Rs. 40,000/ - on account of expenses incurred on the medicines, Rs. 10,000/ - for conveyance charges for visits to the hospital/doctor, Rs. 25,000/ - for disability and Rs. 10,000/ - for pain and sufferings, in all totalling Rs. 85,000/ -. However, irrefutably the claimant has suffered disability of the eye and the limb, being a person carrying on milk selling business reflects that his mobility has certainly been retarded. It would certainly affect his earnings, besides, affecting his future life prospects and the manner in which he would now be made to live his life in view of these serious repercussions and in view of the law laid down in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, : (1995 -2)110 P.L.R. 298 (S.C.) the claimant is certainly entitled to the following compensation: - -

(2.) LEARNED Tribunal has certainly awarded compensation on the lower side, when it is a matter of common knowledge that a person suffering from such a malady as a result of an accident undergoes great physical as well as mental repercussions which certainly affect his whole life. Therefore, in view of these discussions the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation which is enhanced to Rs. 1,30,000/ -. Rest of the stipulations as laid down in the impugned award shall remain unchanged.