2016 (9) TMI 1663 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking enhancement of compensation in regard to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident - HELD THAT - Indisputably the claimant did not examine any doctor from Artemis Hospital Gurgaon to prove nature of injuries sustained treatment given in regard thereto and the period of treatment. Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to say something as to for how many days the injured/victim remained confined to the hospital or away from his workplace (Haryana Police). The mere fact that the appellant examined an official from Artemis Hospital Gurgaon to prove bills Ex.P4 to P28 is not at all sufficient to accept the contention that he is entitled to enhancement of compensation or compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and equitable. In absence of justification to grant compensation under other heads submissions made by counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted only in view of value of the bills exhibited on record. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident.

The judgment involves an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The appellant argued that additional compensation should be awarded for special diet, transportation, and attendant charges based on the value of bills submitted. However, the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the nature of injuries, treatment received, and the period of hospitalization. The court noted that merely submitting bills without proper justification is insufficient to warrant an increase in compensation. The Tribunal's award of Rs.20,000 for pain and suffering was deemed unjustified due to lack of details on the nature and period of treatment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, and the application for condonation of delay was considered academically irrelevant since the appeal was decided on its merits.