State Of Haryana And Others v. Baldev Singh And Another S

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

Two appeals, namely, FAO Nos. 787 and 876 of 1993, are being disposed of by this single judgment, having arisen out of the same accident.

Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals are that on 3.8.1992, Baldev Singh, the claimant-appellant was travelling along with Sher Singh, on a Hero Honda Motorcycle No. HR-07-A-0311 from Babain to District Courts, Kurukshetra, which was being driven by Sher Singh. When they reached in the area of Village Ramgarh, a Matador No. HR-24/3294, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver, came from the opposite side and struck against their motorcycle after going to its wrong side. Resultantly, both the motorcyclists including the claimant-appellant, Baldev Singh, sustained injuries.

The claimant, Baldev Singh, preferred MACT Case No. 102 of 1992, before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, claiming compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident The learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- under different heads. Aggrieved therefrom, the State of Haryana has preferred FAO No. 787 of 1993, for setting aside the impugned Award. The claimant-appellant has filed FAO No. 876 of 1993, seeking enhancement thereof.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the statement of Dr. Ranju Soni, PW2, who medico-legally examined the appellant, Baldev Singh, it is evident that he suffered multiple injuries on his person including fracture shaft femur of right side. He remained bed-ridden for a period of 2½ months. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of ‘loss of income’, Rs. 20,000/- towards ‘medication, special diet, transportation, attendant, etc.’, and Rs. 65,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life’.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid compensation awarded against the respective heads seems just and reasonable and no case of enhancement thereof is made out. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the well reasoned Award of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, FAO No. 876 of 1993 is hereby dismissed. There is also no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the State of Haryana that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. Consequently, FAO No. 787 of 1993, filed by the State of Haryana is also dismissed.