High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maya Devi vs Nirmal Singh & Ors on 1 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maya Devi vs Nirmal Singh & Ors on 1 July, 2009
FAO No.855 of 2009                                 1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                        FAO No.855 of 2009
                                        Date of Decision:01.07.2009

Maya Devi

                                                   ....appellant

                    Versus

Nirmal Singh & Ors.

                                                   .....respondents

CORAM:         HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:       Mr.R.S.Mamli,Advocate
               for the appellant
                     ****

RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.

This is claimant’s appeal challenging the Award dated

18.11.2008 passed by MACT(Fast Track Court) Kurukshetra in MACT

Case No.73 of 2008, on the ground of inadequacy of the compensation

granted to her, for the injuries suffered by her in the motor vehicle accident

while travelling in Bus No.PB-10AP-0677 due to the rash and negligent

driving of respondent No.1.

On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal vide impugned

Award held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of

Bus No. PB-10AP-0677 by respondent No.1. However, while granting a

total sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the appellant the Tribunal held

that it was not proved that injury suffered by Maya Devi-appellant was

grievous and found that she spent only a sum of Rs.1050/- on her

treatment.

Challenging the impugned Award, learned counsel for the

appellant has vehemently argued that the compensation granted to the

appellant by the Tribunal was inadequate and the same deserves to be

enhanced to a respectable amount.

FAO No.855 of 2009 2

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused

the impugned Award.

As per her own case, the appellant had a chest injury and

was admitted in the Civil Hospital on 28.03.2006 and after treatment, was

discharged on 30.03.2006 and she was charged an amount of Rs.1050/-

as per bill Ex.P-1. The appellant has not placed on record any other

evidence to prove any other expenditure made by her on her treatment.

She also failed to prove the injuries on her body. Thus, in the absence of

any evidence brought on record in support of the case by the appellant, I

find no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

Dismissed.

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE
01.07.2009
neenu