Gagandeep v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors

FAO-2851-2005(O&M

IN THE Gagandeep @ Mon Sukhbir Singh and CORAM: HON'

Present: Mr. As

Mr. Om

For res

SANJAY VASHIS

¶1This case i deprived of just c than 24 years), a Vehicles Act, 1988 fixed on anyone e assesment, to equ which involves pai M)

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH

nti Vs.

others ****

BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY ****

shwani Arora, Advocate for the a m Pal Sharma, Advocate spondent No.3/National Insuranc ****

STH, J. s a locus classicus wherein compensation for more than t awarding of which is the pri

¶8Unfortunately, responsibilit except our system, which req ip itself for making an early de inful or sensitive subject matte B AND HARYANA H FAO-2851-2005(O&M) Reserved on: 20.12.2024 Pronounced on:14.02.2025

. . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents Y VASHISTH appellant. ce Company Ltd. the injured-victim has been two decades (a total of more imary objective of the Motor ty for such a delay cannot be quires introspection and self-ecision, especially in the cases er. t

s

n e r e - s FAO-2851-2005(O&M

¶2Appellant-G was 16 years old hit by the driver o Singh (responden manner. Responde respondent No.3 insured. Though summarized facts view while awardi same are discusse

¶3On 18.06.2 Chandigarh to Dad when they reache No.HR-37-A-0921 fast speed from th struck against the sustained serious Respondents No. hearing of the app Claims Tribunal, C

¶4In the writ averments raised that the driver of t M)

agandeep @ Monti (hereinaf on the worst day of his life i.e f an offending truck bearing H nt No.1), who was driving in ent No.2-Subhash Kumar was is the Insurance Company w not much needs to be d may help in advancing justic ing the adequate and just amo d hereinafter in brief. 000, claimant-Gagandeep du Majra on a cycle that was b ed in front of CTU Workshop, (hereinafter referred to as ' he opposite direction and while cycle. As a result, both the cyc s injuries, whereafter he wa 1 and 2 neither appeared be peal; nor represented themselv Chandigarh (hereinafter referre tten statement filed by the I through the claim petition we the offending vehicle did not h fter referred to as 'claimant') e. on 18.06.2000, when he was R-37-A-0921, namely, Sukhbir a grossly rash and negligent the owner of the vehicle and ith which the said truck was discussed but starting with ce by taking a compassionate unt of compensation, thus, the @ Monti was going from being paddled by one Ajay and , a truck bearing Registration 'offending vehicle') came at a e coming from the wrong side, cle riders fell and the claimant as removed to the hospital. fore this Court at the time of ves before the Motor Accident ed to as 'learned Tribunal') Insurance Company, material ere denied, and it was pleaded have a valid Driving License at

s r t d s h e e m d n a , t . f t l d t FAO-2851-2005(O&M

the time of acciden compensate the cl

¶5After the pl issues:

¶6In order to which are as follow

(i) PW1 - Gagan narrated in the ple Ex. P7 and also st He also deposed t unable to pass his the accident and unable to lead no cards Ex. P8 to P-1

(ii) PW2 - Dr. A. appeared and st M)

nt. Thus, an attempt was made aimant. leadings of the parties, learn "1. Whether the claimant sustained in a motor vehicular accident whi negligent driving of respondent No.1 37-A-0921. If, so, its effect? OPP

2.If issue No.1 is proved to what am is entitled and from whom of the resp

¶3Whether respondent No.1 was no its effect? OPR.

¶4Relief." prove his case, the claimant e ws:- ndeep @ Monti (claimant eadings and produced the orig tated about the amount spent that his left foot was crushed s urine. Further stated that he was a student. Also stated th rmal life and had to discontin 12 were also produced. .K. Manda, Department of N ated that the injured had s e to escape from its liability to ed tribunal framed following fracture and other multiple injuries ich took place due to the rash and 1 while he was driving truck No. HR-mount of compensation, the claimant spondents? OPP ot having valid driving license. If so, examined total five witnesses, himself), who proved facts ginal medical bills as Ex. P1 to by him during the treatment. and amputated and that he is was unmarried at the time of hat after the accident, he was nue his studies. The discharge Neurology, PGI, Chandigarh, suffered multiple long bone o g s d - t , , s o . s f s e , e FAO-2851-2005(O&M

fractures alongwit bladder. It was als further required to

(iii) PW3-Dr. S appeared and stat his left clavicle, fr and crush injury i (General Surgery) three specialists stated that left le opined that the in for life.

(iv) PW4 - Dr. Vi the summoned re stated about the f rectal injury with Lapatomany with with rectal packin the need for a seco

(v) PW5-Dr. San statements of othe another surgery. M)

th injury to his intestine, anal c so stated that despite undergo o undergo 2/3 operations. Som Shekhar, Surgery Dep ed from his record that the inju ractured pelvis, ruptured blad n left leg. He remained admitt from 18.06.2000 to 29.06.200 i.e. General Surgery, Orthop eg of the injured was amputa njured may be required to pas ikas Gupta, General Surgery ecord apart stating about ad fracture of pelvis and rupture h crush injury left foot for w the sigmoid look colostomy ng with left lower limb below ond surgery. njay, PGI, Chandigarh, app er doctors and also confirmed t canal and injury to his urinary oing one operation, injured is partment, PGI, Chandigarh, ured had suffered a fracture in dder, laceration of the rectum, ted in the Surgery department 00 and was operated upon by edic and Neurology. Further ated below the knee and also s stool through the colostomy y, PGI, Chandigarh, produced dmission in hospital. He has of Urethra with perineal and which injured had to undergo y with suprapubic cystectomy knee amputation. Also stated eared and corroborated the that the injured would require y s , n , t y r o y d s d o y d e e FAO-2851-2005(O&M

¶7The stateme Tribunal from 2 evidences i.e. fol summary-Ex.P-16 (Ex.P18) and Copy Insurance Compan

¶8Under issue took place due to finding has attain respondents. Ther the grant of adequ complete medical normal life expect bills, it awarded R

¶9On the bas certificate, total pe considered as 86% on account of perm

¶10For future t assessed including and suffering, an account of loss of M)

ents of complainant-witnesse

21.11.2001 to 24.09.2003 a llow-up cards-Ex. 13, Ex. P ; Disability Certificate-Ex.P17 y of FIR-Ex. P-19 were also p ny tendered the Insurance Poli e No.1, learned Tribunal held o rash and negligent driving ned finality, as there is no f refore, only issue before this Co uate and just compensation. Lea evidence by taking the age of tancy of a person as 65 years s. 52,000/- (round figure) on a sis of the statements of the ermanent disability of the claim % and a consolidated amount o manent disability, loss of enjoy treatment, compensation of an g the medicines, operations, a n amount of Rs.75,000/-, and expectation of life, attendant's es were recorded by learned and the other documentary P14 and Ex. P15; Discharge 7; Medical Bills of Rs.28,869 produced by the claimant. The cy as Ex. R1. d in specific that the accident of respondent No.1, and said further appeal by any of the ourt in present appeal is about arned Tribunal considered the f the claimant as 17 years and s. By considering the medical account of medical expenses. e doctors and the disability mant towards whole body was of Rs. 4,50,000/- was awarded yment, and future prospects. n amount of Rs. 85,000/- was and special diet etc. For pain d by applying guesswork on s help, expenses to be incurred d y e e t d e t e d l y s d s n n d FAO-2851-2005(O&M

on account of tra amount of Rs. 1 lac

¶11Thus, learne total compensatio the date of filing

03.09.2004.

This is how learned Tribunal, was admitted on this Court on one the Lok Adalat als not be arrived pr agreed upon the from the file is tha was reconstructed

¶12It is during t by claimant i.e Superintendent of claimant and to

10.11.2022, Medic claimant examine permanent disab certificate issued M)

ansportation to the hospital a c. was awarded to the claimant ed Tribunal concluded that the n of Rs.7,62,000/- alongwith in g of the petition till its reali w after being dissatisfied wi the claimant filed present ap

30.08.2005 and since then, n pretext or the other. In betwe so but despite making best of t robably because the Insuran amount proposed by the cla at at one point in time, the reco d. the pendency of the appeal tha . CM-25496-CII of 2018 f PGI, Chandigarh to reassess th issue the disability certifica cal Superintendent of PGI Chan d by the Competent Medical B ility, as per the prescribed in respect thereof. The applic and other places, a lump sum t. e injured is entitled to receive nterest @ 9% per annum from ization vide its award dated ith the findings recorded by ppeal before this Court which o decision has been taken by en, the matter was referred to the efforts, compromise could nce Company might not have imant. Another fact born out ord was burnt and then the file at on moving of an application for directing the medical he permanent disability of the ate afresh, vide order dated ndigarh was directed to get the Board for reassessment of his d procedure and to get the cation was adjourned to await m e m d y h y o d e t e n l e d e s e t FAO-2851-2005(O&M

compliance report and it appears tha the Board of Dire application move allowed. Vide ord was directed to pr

¶13In the appl learned Tribunal t as to the Insuranc Thereafter, appeal

¶14After record appeared before report to this Cou aforesaid report a PW-6 Dr. Amrend New Delhi; Statem Board, Departmen Kumar, Senior Te Kumar, Senior Res record. Tendered to Ex. P161 are als M)

t. The compliance report was at on receipt of it, copy of disa ctors of PGIMER, Chandigarh ed by the claimant for leadi der dated 18.01.2024, the Mo repare a report within four mon lication for additional evide to afford 'two effective' opport ce Company for the purpose o l was adjourned sine die on 18 ding the medical evidence of Tribunal as PW6 to PW9, le urt vide letter No. Ahl/D&SJ, alongwith additional evidence dra Pathak, Consultant, Urolo ment of PW7-Dr. Divya Dahia, nt of General Surgery, PGI, C echnician, Deep Artificial Limb sident, Department of Urology, documents in evidence by clai so taken on record. awaited on several occasions ability report as submitted by was taken on record and the ing additional evidence was otor Accident Claims Tribunal nths. nce, direction was given to tunities to the claimant as well of leading additional evidence.

8.01.2024. f the concerned doctors, who arned Tribunal submitted its Chd 8 Dated 16.04.2024. The e in the shape of statement of gist, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Member of Medical Disability Chandigarh; PW-8 Shri Sanjay b Centre and PW-9, Dr. Shiva , PGI, Chandigarh, are taken on imant i.e. medical bills Ex. P31 s y e s l o l . o s e f , y y a n FAO-2851-2005(O&M

¶15Now for the amount, counsel f which are there on

¶16Learned cou awarded a very m enhanced many ti the Tribunal as ad

Learned cou of the Hon'ble Sup

(i) Kajal Vs. Jagd Doc ID #1679623

(ii) G. Ravindran LawFinder Doc ID

(iii) Sri. Benson G 2022(13) SCC 142

(iv) G. Vivek Vs. N LawFinder Doc ID

(v) Baby Sakshi G RCR (civil) 238,, L

(vi) Reliance Ge others, passed in ID #2670936. M)

e purpose of deciding the ade for the claimant referred to t n record as additional evidence unsel for the appellant subm meager amount of compensatio imes, after examining the now ditional evidence. unsel for the appellant relies u preme Court as well as of this C dish Chand and others, 2020( 3; ath Vs. E. Srinivas and anoth D #470316; George Vs. Reliance General 2; LawFinder Doc ID #195005 National Insurance Co. Ltd. D #2091424; Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad S LawFinder Doc ID #2672826; eneral Insurance Company n FAO-3608-2017, 2024:NCPH equate and just compensation the statements of the doctors, e. its that learned Tribunal has on and the same requires to be w led medical evidence before upon the following judgments Court:

(2) RCR(Civil) 27; LawFinder her, 2013(3) RCR(Civil) 934; Insurance Ct. Ltd. and anr., 54; and another, 2023 ACJ 585; Simon and another, 2025(1) and Ltd. Vs. Priyanka Das and HHC:161297; LawFinder Doc n , s e e s r ; , ; ) d c FAO-2851-2005(O&M

¶17On the othe No.3 - Insurance C evidence led bef compensation alr evidence now led w the just amount of

¶18However, In fact findings alrea brought on recor evidence in the sh

¶19I have gone recorded by learn subsequent to the therefore is of th many times and fo

¶20Dr. Amrend the urethral and i intestinal injury su injured was exam Doctor and stated has developed, the He also stated the in which the cha M)

er hand, learned counsel appea Company submits that even af fore the Tribunal, no enha ready awarded by the Tribu would not lead to any logical c f compensation for the claiman nsurance Company is not in a si ady recorded by learned Trib rd by the witnesses at the t ape of statements of PW6 to PW e through the available record ned Tribunal and also the new e decision of the Tribunal in e view that the compensation or same the reasons are record ra Pathak-PW6, who examine ntestinal injury, made a fresh uffered by the injured. He stat mined by him while he was w d that due to the surgery, a ve ereby connecting the stool pas e need for a multidisciplinary a nces of success are less than aring on behalf of respondent fter considering the additional ancement in the amount of unal is called for, rather the onclusion as to what would be nt. ituation to say much about the bunal, and also the facts now time of leading of additional W9. d and considered the findings w facts which infact happened the last about 20 years and n is required to be enhanced ded hereafter. ed the injured with regard to statement regarding urethral ted that even in the year 2022, working in PGI as a Resident ery large urethra rectal fistula ssage with the urinal passage. approach for closure of fistula n 50%. Dr. Amrendra Pathak t l f e e e w l s d d d o l , t a . a k FAO-2851-2005(O&M

further stated th Colostomy throug other documentar doctor. In cross-ex in physical movem

¶21Another wit Disability Certifica claimant was asse knee amputation. injured cannot be and the disability disability.

Sh. Sa appeared as PW8 working with Dee stated that after quotation amount below knee pros Rs.15,00,000/- ap and wear and tea such prosthesis w P29 were also take M)

at presently i.e. in the year gh which he is passing stool t ry evidences Ex. P20 to Ex. P xamination, it emerged that th ment because he has to either c tness Dr. Divya Dahia, in her s ate Ex. 27, and stated that th essed as 60% in relation to left However, the Doctor clarifi assessed with regard to the u y stated by her is only abou njay Kumar, Senior Technician and proved that he is a diplo ep Artificial Limb Centre for t examining the injured in r ting to Rs.10,55,000/- inclu sthesis, which at present ha pproximately. Further, it requ ar costing around Rs.40,000-5 was also stated as 5-6 years. Th en on record. r 2024, the patient is under through another passage. The P26 were proved by the said he injured would face difficulty arry two bags or use diapers. statement as PW7 proved the he locomotor disability of the t lower limb due to left below-ied that the disability of the urology and GI/rectal problem ut the orthopedics/locomotor n, Deep Artificial Limb Centre oma holder in prosthetics and the last 14 -15 years. He also regard to the amputation, a sive GST was issued for left as escalated to the price of ires expenditure qua its care 50,000/- per year. The life of he documents Ex. P28 and Ex. r e d y e e - e m r e d o a t f e f . FAO-2851-2005(O&M

¶22Dr. Shiva Chandigarh appea year 2002 includi that the patient u transpubic urethr obstruction. On e stricture and blad endoscopic proce urethrotomy and was fragmented bowel surgery an proved that patien antibiotic therapie successive multipl surgery. He also surgical correction Further, the injure catheter/diapers i and gloves, etc. th doctor also made i the patient like s erectile dysfunctio this witness has pr form of the additio M)

Kumar, Senior Resident, D ared as PW-9 and stated abou ing the regular follow-up trea underwent urethral reconstru roplasty and also developed f evaluation, patient/ injured w dder calculus i.e. bladder stone edure in the year 2013 w laser cystolithotripsy through and removed. Again on, 13 nd follow-up continued till the nt/injured had developed urin es intermittently and also sta le surgeries, and chances of rec stated that the patient will r n in future which would requ ed would require recurring exp in case of urine leaks and in hat would require frequent r it clear that overall normal life sexual activities etc. would d on associated with pelvic frac roved the patient's condition r onal evidence now led before th epartment of Urology, PGI, ut the treatment given in the atment in OPD. He also stated uction procedure in shape of features suggestive of urinary was found to have a urethral e, for which he underwent an which was optical internal h which the bladder calculus .06.2014, injured underwent e year 2016. This doctor also nary tract infections requiring ted about patient undergoing covery going down with every require multiple surgeries for uire considerable expenditure. penditure on urine bag, foley's the absence of that, sanitizer replacements fortnightly. The e and other normal activities of definitely get affected due to cture urethral injury. Broadly, right from 2002 to 2022, in the he Tribunal. , e d f y l n l s t o g g y r . s r e f o , e FAO-2851-2005(O&M)

¶23For deciding the just amount of compensation that the claimant is entitled to, especially in the light of the legislative intent of the legislature while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court shall be guided by various pronouncements laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. In the year 2003, Hon'ble Apex Court in'State of Haryana and another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others, 2003 AIR Supreme Court 3696; Law Finder Doc ID #64043, held that statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be bonanza; not a source of profit, but the same should not be a pittance. Reminding the Courts and Tribunals of their noble duties, it observed that measures of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar and special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just compensation" which is the pivotal consideration. The observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment in Paragraph No. 7 are reproduced hereinbelow:- "7.o Ito haso too beo kepto ino viewo thato theo %ribunalo constitutedo undero theo *cto aso providedoinoSectiono168oisorequiredotoomakeoanoawardodeterminingotheoamountoofo compensationowhichoisotoobeoinotheorealosenseo"damages"owhichoinoturnoappearso tooitotoobeo" ustoandoreasonable".oItohasotoobeoborneoinomindothatocompensationoforo lossoofolimbsoorolifeocanohardl!obeoweighedoinogoldenoscales.o"utoatotheosameotimeo ito haso beo too beo borneoino mindo thato theo compensationo iso noto e)pectedo too beo ao windfalloforotheovictim.oStautor!oprovisionsoclearl!oindicateothatocompensationo mustobeo" ust"oandoitocannotobeoaobonan#a$onotoaosourceoofoprofit$obutotheosameo shouldonotobeoaopittance.o%heo&ourtsoando%ribunalsohaveoaodut!otooweighotheo variousofactorsoandoquantif!otheoamountoofocompensation'owhichoshouldobeo ust.o (hatowouldobeo" ust"ocompensationoisoaove)edoquestion.o%hereocanobeonoogoldeno o o o o o o 13o ruleoapplicableotooallocasesoforomeasuringotheovalueoofohumanolifeooroaolimb.o Measureoofodamagesocannotobeoarrivedoatobyopreciseomathematicalocalculations.oIto wouldo dependo upono theo particularo factso ando circumstances,o ando attendingo peculiaroorospecialofeatures,oifoany.oEveryomethodooromodeoadoptedoforoassessingo compensationohasotoobeoconsideredoinotheobackgroundoofo"just"ocompensationo whicho iso theo pivotalo consideration.o Thougho byo useo ofo theo expressiono "whicho appearso too ito too beo just"o ao wideo discretiono iso vestedo ono theo Tribunal,o theo determinationohasotoobeorational,otoobeodoneobyoaojudiciousoapproachoandonototheo outcomeoofowhims,owildoguessesoandoarbitrariness.oTheoexpressiono"just"odenoteso equitability,o fairnesso ando reasonablenesso ando non-arbitrary.o Ifo ito iso noto soo ito cannoto beo just[seeo Heleno C.o Rebelloo v.o Maharashtrao Stateo Roado Transporto Corporationo(AIRo1998oSupremeoCourto3191):o1988(4)oRCRo(Civil)o177(SC)]."o In Yadava Kumar V. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2010 AIR Supreme Court 3741, Law Finder Doc ID #215092, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "18.o Ito goeso withouto sayingo thato ino matterso ofo determinationo ofo compensationo botho theo Tribunalo ando theo Courto areo statutorilyo chargedo withoaoresponsibilityoofofixingoao'justocompensation'.oItoisoobviouslyotrueo thatodeterminationoofoaojustocompensationocannotobeoequatedotooaobonanza.o Ato theo sameo timeo theo concepto ofo 'justo compensation'obviouslyo suggestso applicationoofofairoandoequitableoprinciplesoandoaoreasonableoapproachoono theopartoofotheoTribunalsoandoCourts.oThisoreasonablenessoonotheopartoofo theo Tribunalo ando Courto musto beo ono ao largeo peripheralo field.o Botho theo CourtsoandoTribunalsoinotheomatteroofothisoexerciseoshouldobeoguidedobyo principlesoofogoodoconscienceosoothatotheoultimateoresultobecomeojustoando equitableo(seeoMrs.oHelenoC.ooRebellooandoothersov.oMaharashtraoStateo RoadoTransportoCorpn.oandoanother,o1998o(4)oRCRo(Civil)o177).o

19.ooThisoCourtoalsooheldothatoinotheodeterminationoofotheoquantumoofo compensation,otheoCourtomustobeoliberaloandonotoniggardlyoinoasomuchoaso inofreeocountryolawomustovalueolifeoandolimboonoaogenerousoscaleo(seeo HardeooKauroandoothersov.oRajasthanoStateoTransportoCorporationoando another,o(1992)o2oSCCo567).o

20.ooTheoHighoCourtoandotheoTribunalomustorealizeothatothereoisodistinctiono betweeno compensationo ando damage.o Theo expressiono compensationo mayo o o o o o o 14o includeo ao claimo foro damageo buto compensationo iso moreo comprehensive.o Normallyoodamagesoareogivenoforoanoinjuryoowhichoisosuffered,owhereaso compensationo standso ono ao slightlyo highero footing.o Ito iso giveno foro theo atonemento ofo injuryo causedo ando o theo intentiono behindo granto ofo compensationoisotooputobackotheoinjuredopartyoasofaroasopossibleoinotheo sameoposition,oasoifotheoinjuryohasonototakenoplace,obyowayoofograntoofo pecuniaryorelief.oThus,oinotheomatteroofocomputationoofocompensation,otheo approacho willo beo slightlyo moreo broado basedo thano whato iso doneo ino theo matteroofoassessmentoofodamages.oAtotheosameotimeoitoisotrueothatothereo cannoto beo anyo rigido oro mathematicalo precisiono ino theo mattero ofo determinationoofocompensation." In 'Meenao Devio Vs.o Nunuo Chando Mahtoo @o Nemchando Mahtoo ando others,o2023(1)SCCo204,otheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoheldothatotheoTribunaloando theoHighoCourtohaveovast powers for awarding of compensation amount more than the amount claimed in the claim petition. The aforesaid view was reiterated in case of Chandramanio Nandao Vs.o Sarato Chandrao Swaino ando another',o2024(4)oR.C.Ro(Civil)o614,LawoFinderoDocoIDo#2655597.oTheorelevanto paragraph No. 20 of the judgment says as under: "20.o Ano argumento iso raisedo byo learnedo counselo foro theo insuranceo companyothatotheoappellantohasoinitiallyoclaimedoaosumoofoRs.30,00,000/- andosinceotheosameohavingobeenoawardedotoohimobyotheoHighoCourt,onoo furtheroenhancementoisopossible.oWeocannotoacceptothisoargumentoandoitoiso dulyo rejected.o Ito iso ao settledo propositiono ofo law,o thato theo amounto ofo compensationoclaimedoisonotoaobaroforotheoTribunaloandotheoHighoCourtotoo awardomoreothanowhatoisoclaimed,oprovidedoito isofoundotoobeojustoando reasonable.oItoisotheodutyoofotheoCourtotooassessofairocompensation.oRougho calculationomadeobyotheoclaimantoisonotoaobaroorotheoupperolimit.oReferenceo inothisoregardocanobeomadeotootheojudgmentoofothisoCourtoinotheocaseoofo MeenaoDeviovs.oNunuoChandoMahto."o o o o o o o o 15o Thus, in view of the parameters laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the catena of judgments, this Court shall now proceed to determine the just amount of compensation that the claimant/appellant is entitled.

24.oo o InoaorecentojudgmentorenderedobyoHon'bleoApexoCourtoinoAbhimanyuo PartapoSinghov.oNamitaoSekhon,o2022(3)oR.C.Ro(Civil)o557:oLawoFinderoDoco IDo#2008349,otheoApexoCourtoobservedothatotheocompensationoinoaocaseoofomotoro vehicularoaccidentocanobeoassessedounderotwooheads.o Compensationoo o I.oPecuniaryoo o o o o o o II.oNon-pecuniaryo A.oLossoofofutureoearningoo o o o A.oPainoandosufferingsoo B.oMedicaloexpenseso o o o o B.oLossoofoenjoymento C.oFutureomedicaloexpenseso o o o C.o Losso ofo Maritalo Blissoooooooooo D.oAttendantochargeso o o o o o E.oSpecialodieto F.oTransportationo o o ThisoCourtowillonowodealowithoallotheoaspectsoinoorder.o I.l Pecuniaryoo A.lLossoofofutureoearning:o A.(i)oDeterminationoofomonthlyosalaryoofoinjured:o o o Ino ordero too computeo theo amounto ofo compensationo payableo too theo claimant,otheofirstoaspectotoobeodeterminedoisotheomonthlyosalaryoofotheoinjured.o Consideringotheoaspectothatotheoinjuredowasoaostudentoandobeingoaoliterateoyoungo boy,o wouldo haveo startedo earningo ato theo ageo ofo 21o years,o hiso notionalo monthlyo incomeoisoherebyoassessedoatoRs.3,000/-operomonth.o o o o o o o 16o Accordinglyodecided.o A.(ii).oFutureoProspects:o oo o Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheojudgmentotitledoasoPranayoSethi'socaseo (complete)o observedo thato theo futureo prospectso too theo tuneo ofo 40%o needo too beo grantedoifotheodeceasedoisolessothano40oyearsoold.oTheorelevantoParao61o(iii)oofotheo saidojudgment,oisoreproducedohereobelow:o "61.oInoviewoofotheoaforesaidoanalysis,oweoproceedotoorecordoouro conclusions:-o x-------x-------x--------x--------x--------x-------x--------x----- --x------x--------x------xo

(iii)oInocaseotheodeceasedowasoself-employedooroonoaofixedo salary,o ano additiono ofo 40%o ofo theo establishedo incomeo shouldobeotheowarrantowhereotheodeceasedowasobelowotheo ageoofo40oyears.oAnoadditionoofo25%owhereotheodeceasedo wasobetweenotheoageoofo40otoo50oyearsoando10%owhereo theo deceasedo waso betweeno theo ageo ofo 50o too 60o yearso shouldo beo regardedo aso theo necessaryo methodo ofo computation.oTheoestablishedoincomeomeansotheoincomeo minusotheotaxocomponent."o o o Therefore,oinoviewoofotheolawolaidodownobyoHon'bleoApexoCourt,othiso Courtoisoofotheoviewothatosince,otheoinjuredowouldohaveostartedoearningotentativelyoato theoageoofo21oyears,oenhancementobyowayoofofutureoprospectsoofo40%oneedsotoobeo addedotootheosalaryoofotheoinjured.oThus,oafteroadditionoofofutureoprospects,otheo monthlyosalaryoofotheodeceasedowouldobeoRs.4,200/-o(Rs.3,000/-o+oRs.1,200/-).o Accordinglyodecided.o A.(iii).oAnnualoSalaryoofoInjured:o o o Now,obyomultiplyingotheomonthlyosalaryoofotheoInjuredo–oGagandeepo @oMontioi.e.oRs,o4,200/-owitho12omonthsoi.e.ooneoyearoperiod,otheototaloentitlemento ofocompensationoofoappellantso(claimants)owouldobeoofoRs.o50,400/-operoannum.o o o o o o o 17o Accordinglyodecided.o A.(iv).oMultiplier:o o o Asotheoageoofotheoinjuredoatotheotimeoofoaccidentowaso17oyears,otheo multiplieroofo18oisoapplicable.o Accordinglyodecided.o o o Thisoway,otheototalolossoofofutureoearning,obyoapplyingotheomultiplieroofo 18,owouldobeoofoRs.o09,07,200/-.o Accordinglyodecided.o Further,o althougho disabilityo aso statedo byo theo doctoro "maybeo o 86o %o permanento disability"obutoholdoandoprovedofactsoonorecordoclearlyospeakooutothatoclaimantohaso sufferedo injurieso too theo internalo organso ando urinaryo bladder/urethrao areo almosto damagedo ando injuryo sufferedo ino theo intestineo ledo too theo amputationo ofo lefto leg.o Therefore,oforotheopurposeoofocalculatingotheoamountoofocompensationopayableotoo theoclaimant/appellant,otheodisabilityowouldobeotakenoaso100%ophysicalodisability.o Thus,onoodeductionoonothatoaccountoneedsotoobeomade.oo B.lMedicaloExpenseso(includingohospitalizationocharges):o o oo Followingo theo principleso aso observedo ino G.o Ravindranath'so caseo (supra),othisoCourtohasoalsooreassessedotheoamountoofocompensationoonoaccountoofo expensesoincurredoinotreatment,ohospitalizationochargesoandotransportation.oo o o Therefore,o ono accounto ofo expenseso incurredo ino treatmento ando Hospitalization,ocompensationoamountoofoRs.o2,20,000/-oisoawarded.oo o o o o o o 18o C.lFutureomedicaloexpenses:o oo o Theocertificateodatedo13.05.2022oissuedobyoSiroGangaoRamohospitalo haso beenoproducedoono recordo andohaso beenoprovedo aso Ex.oP26o byo PW-6o -o Dr.o Amrainder.oFurther,oitohasoalreadyocomeoonorecordothatopatientoisosufferingofromo urethraorectalopestula,oandorequiresofrequentohospitalizationoandohasoalsooundergoneo majoro surgicalo procedureo includingo closureo colostomy.o Theo tentativeo costo ofo investigationoandosurgeryoisosuggestedothereinoasoRs.o15,00,000/-oapproximately.o Since,onoocross-examinationohasobeenoconductedoonotheosaidowitness,otherefore,otheo sameoisotakenotoobeocorrectoasoRs.15,00,000/-o(RupeesoFifteenolacsoonly)o o Moreover,o costo ofo ano artificialo limbo iso projectedo too beo Rs.15,00,000/-o ato presentoandoannualocostooforepairingoofoartificialolimboisoRs.50,000/-.oPresentlyotheo appellantoisoagedoaroundo40oyearsoandoconsideringoaverageolifeoexpectancyotoobeo65o years,oaototaloamountoofoRs.12,50,000/-o[50,000oxo25(65-40oyears)]owillobeorequiredo foro reparingo ofo theo artificialo limb.o Therefore,o ao totalo amounto ofo Rs.27,50,000/-o (Rs.15,00,000+12,50,000)oisoherebyoawardedotootheoclaimant/appellantoonoaccounto ofoartificialolimboandoitsorepair.o o Further,o ano amounto ofo Rs.o 3,00,000/-o iso awardedo consideringo theo futureo escalationoinotheoprices.o o Thus,oaototaloamountoofoRs.o45,50,000o/-o(Rupeesofortyofiveolacsoandofiftyo thousandoonly)o(Rs.o15,00,000o+oRs.o15,00,000o+oRs.o12,50,000o+oRs.o3,00,000)oiso herebyoawardedoonoaccountoofofutureomedicaloexpenses.o o Accordinglyodecided.o D.lAttendantocharges:oo o o o o o o 19o oo o o InoKajal'socaseo(supra),oinjuredowasoaofemaleochildoagedoabouto 12o yearso andodateo ofo theo accidento waso 18.10.2007o ando ito waso observedobyo theo Hon'bleoApexoCourtothatotoodetermineotheoattendantocharges,oMultiplierosystemo shouldobeoapplied.oRelevantoparagraphsoNo.o22oando25oofotheoaforesaidojudgmento areoasounder:o "22.oo TheoattendantochargesohaveobeenoawardedobyotheoHighoCourtoatotheorateoofo Rs.2,500operomonthoforo44oyears,owhichoworksooutotooRs.13,20,000.oUnfortunately,o thiso systemo iso noto ao propero system.o Multipliero systemo iso usedo too balanceo outo variousofactors.oWhenocompensationoisoawardedoinolumposum,ovariousofactsoareo takenointooconsideration.oWhenocompensationoisopaidoinolumposum,othisocourtohaso alwaysofollowedotheomultiplierosystem.oTheomultiplierosystemoshouldobeofollowedo notoonlyoforodeterminingotheocompensationoonoaccountoofolossoofoincomeobutoalsoo forodeterminingotheoattendantocharges,oetc.oThisosystemowasorecognizedobyothiso CourtoinoGobaldoMotoroServiceoLtd.ov.oR.M.K.oVeluswami,o1958-65oACJo179o(SC).o Theomultiplierosystemofactorsoinotheoinflationorate,otheorateoofointerestopayableoono theolumposumoaward,otheolongevityoofotheoclaimant,oandoalsoootheroissuesosuchooaso theouncertaintiesoofolife.oOutoofoallotheovariousoalternativeomethods,ootheomultipliero methodo haso beeno recognizedo aso theo mosto realistico ando reasonableo method.o Ito ensureso bettero justiceo betweeno theo partieso ando thuso resultso ino awardo ofo 'justo compensation'owithinotheomeaningoofotheoAct.o

23.o xxxxo

24.o xxxxo

25.o oHavingoheldoso,oweoareoclearlyoofotheoviewothatotheobasicoamountotakenoforo determiningoattendantochargesoisoveryomuchoonotheoloweroside.oWeomustoremembero thatothisolittleogirloisoseverelyoosufferingofromoincontinenceomeaningothatosheodoeso notohaveocontrolooveroherobodilyofunctionsolikeopassingourineoandofaeces.oAsosheo growsoolder,osheowillonotobeoableotoohandleoheroperiods.oSheorequiresoanoattendanto virtuallyo 24o hourso ao day.o Sheo requireso ano attendanto whoo thougho mayo noto beo medicallyotrainedobutomustobeocapableoofohandlingoaochildowhooisobedridden.oSheo wouldorequireoanoattendantowhoowouldoensureothatosheodoesonotosufferofromobedo sores.oTheoclaimantohasoplacedobeforeousoaonotificationoofotheoStateoofoHaryanaoofo theoyearo2010,owhereinotheowagesoforoskilledolaboureroisoRs.4,846operomonth.oWe,o therefore,oassessotheocostoofooneoattendantoatoRs.5,000oandosheowillorequireotwoo attendantso whicho workso outo too Rs.10,000/-o pero month,o whicho comeso too Rs.1,20,000/-o pero annum,o ando usingo theo multipliero ofo 18o ito workso outo too o o o o o o 20o Rs.21,60,000oforoattendantochargesoforoheroentireolife.oThisotakeocareoofoallotheo pecuniaryodamages."o

Inotheopresentocaseoalso,othereoisoampleomedicaloevidenceoavailableothatoaftero sufferingofromotheodisabilityoandoamputationoofotheolowerolimb,otheopatient/injuredo hasofacedohugeodifficultyoinotheolasto24oyearsosinceotheotimeoofosufferingoinjuriesodueo tooaccidentoinoquestion.oAlso,othereoisoampleoevidenceothatoinotheocase,ovictim-childo wasoofotheoageoofo17oyearsoandodateoofoaccidentowaso18.06.2000oandoalreadyothereoiso theostatementoofodoctorothatotheoinjuredocannotofunctiononormallyoonohisoownoino dailyoroutineoasoitowasoalreadyostatedothatotheoinjuredohasotoootherwiseocarryotwoo bagso whicho requireo too beo emptiedo manyo timeso ao day.o Therefore,o undoubtedly,o claimanto iso entitledo foro gettingo compensationo ono accounto ofo theo needo ofo twoo attendantsoaodayoforo24ohoursoandorequiringothemotoopayoatotheorateoofoonogoingo minimumowagesoforoskilledoworkeroasoRs.10,000/-oeachoperomonthoandoforotheosameo theomaximumomultiplieroofo18oisorequiredotoobeoapplied.oo o Thus,otheocompensationoonoaccountoofoAttendantoChargesocomesooutotoobeo Rs.20,000/-oxo12ox18=oRs.43,20,000/-(Rupeesofortyothreeolacsoandotwentyothousando only).o o Accordinglyodecided.o E.lSpecialodieto Consideringo theo damageso sufferedo byo theo claimanto too hiso partso ofo body,o undoubtedly,osuchoanoinjuryowouldorequireoaospecialodietothroughoutolifeoando therefore,osameoisoawardedoatotheorateoofoRs.o2,000/-operomonthofororestoofohiso life.oConsideringothatotheopresentoageoofotheoclaimant/appellantoiso40oyearso o o o o o o 21o andoaverageolifeoexpectancyotoobeo65oyears,otheoclaimant/appellantoisoheldo entitledotooRs.o6,00,000/-(Rupessosixolacsoonly)o(Rs.o2,000oXo12oXo25).o o Accordinglyodecided.o F.lTransportationo Consideringo theo damageso sufferedo byo theo claimant/appellanto ando theo requirementoforospecialotransportationoarrangements,oanoamountoofoRs.o1,50,000/-o (Rupesso oneo laco ando fiftyo thousando only)o iso herebyo awardedo too theo appellant/claimantoonoaccountoofoTransportation.o Accordinglyodecided.o II.l Non-Pecuniaryo A.oPainoandosufferings:o oo InoBabyoSakshi'socaseo(supra),owhereotheoinjuredowasoaofemaleochildoagedo7o yearsoandohadosufferedogrievousoinjuries,olearnedo TribunaloawardedoRs.50,000/-o towardsopainoandosuffering,obutotheosameowasoenhancedobyotheoHon'bleoHighoCourto tooRs.o12,00,000/-.oWhenotheomatteroreachedotootheoHon'bleoApexoCourt,otheosameo wasoenhancedotooRs.o15,00,000/-.oo o Thus,o ino theo presento caseo also,o byo applyingo theo sameo parameters,o ao compensationo amounto ofo Rs.o 15,00,000/-o (Rupesso Fifteeno lacso only)o iso herebyo awardedotootheoclaimant/appellant.o o Accordinglyodecided.o B.lLossoofoenjoymento Ino paragrapho No.o 6o ofo theo evidenceo ofo PW3,o ito haso beeno provedo thato appellantohasosustainedo75o%omentalomoderateoretardationoandohasonoo o o o o o o 22o controlooverotheopassageoofohisourine.oConsideringotheoinjuriesosufferedobyo theoclaimant/appellantoandohisoinabilityotooleadoaonormalolife,oanoamounto ofo Rs.o 5,00,000/-(Rupeeso fiveo lacso only)o iso herebyo awardedo too theo claimant/appellantoonoaccountoofoLossoofoenjoyment.o o o Accordinglyodecided.o C.lLossoofoamenitiesoandomaritaloblisso Ino G.o Ravindranath'so caseo (supra),o Hon'bleo Apexo Courto whileo grantingo compensationotootheoclaimantoconsideredotheofactothatodueotootheoinjuriesoinotheo pelvicoregion,oinjuredohasobecomeoimpotentoleadingotoolossoofomaritaloblissoandothato heo shallo beo requiredo too undergoo multipleo surgerieso ino future.o Theo relevanto paragraphsoNo.o24,o25oando26oofotheoaforesaidojudgmentosaysoasounder:o "24.o Fromo theo testimonyo ofo threeo witnesses,o ito iso establishedo thato aso ao resulto ofo accidentotheoappellantohadosufferedogrievousoinjuriesoinotheopelvicoregionoandoheohaso becomeo impotent.o Ito iso alsoo establishedo thato heo haso alreadyo undergoneo multipleo surgeriesoandowillohaveotootakeotreatmentoinoinstitutesolikeoNIMSoforoatoleasto10oyears.oo

25.oUnfortunately,otheoMotoroAccidentsoClaimsoTribunal,oRaichurodidonotogiveodueo weightageo too theo evidenceo producedo byo theo appellanto ando awardedo meagero compensationoandothatotooobyooverlookingotheodocumentaryoevidenceoproducedobyo appellantoregardingotheoexpensesoincurredobyohimoatoBhandarioHospital,oRaichuroando NIMSoatoHyderabad.oTheoHighoCourtoalsoofailedotooproperlyoanalyseoandoevaluateotheo evidenceo producedo byo theo appellanto ando dido noto adequatelyo enhanceo theo compensationodeterminedobyotheoTribunal.oo

26.oInoouroview,otheoappellantoisoentitledotooRs.2,20,000/-oforotheoexpensesooincurredoono theo treatmento includingo hospitalizationo charges,o messo ando lodgingo charges,o transportationoetc.oForofutureomedicaloexpensesoincludingohospitalization,omedicines,o attendantochargesoetc.,otheoappellantoisoentitledotooRs.6,00,000/-.oForopain,osufferingo andotrauma,otheoappellantoisoentitledotooaosumoofoRs.3,00,000/-.oForolossoofoamenitieso andoprospectsoofomarriage,otheoappellantoisoentitledotooRs.4,00,000/-.oForotheolossoofo expectationoofolifeoandolossoofofutureoearnings,otheoappellantoisoentitledotooaosumoofo Rs.5,00,000/-." FAO-2851-2005(O&M) In the case at hand also, there is ample evidence including the statement of Dr. Shiva Kumar, Senior Resident, Department of Urology - PW9, who stated that the overall normal life and other normal activities like sexual activity etc. of the injured would definitely get affected due to the injuries. Thus, on this account also, the injured is entitled to receive compensation as there is ample loss of amenities and marital prospects. Therefore, injured is held to be entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lacs only) on account of Loss of Amenities and loss of marital bliss. Accordingly decided.

¶16For the sake of convenience, a comparative chart detailing the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal and this Court is presented below: Sr.oNo.o >92DSo Com%ensationo Com%ensationo a,ardedo71otheo a,ardedo71otheo +d.o<ri7una)o >i&hoCourto ..o $ecuniar1oo o o Ao &o""oo#o#utureo 0".4!<2!2223.o 0"!B!2A!2223.o earningo A4i5o (onthlyoIncomeo o 0".8!2223.o%ero montho A4ii5o )utureo%ro"pect"o o 0".,!2223.o44265o A4iii5o AnnualoIncomeo o 0".<2!4223.o o o o o o o 24o A(iv)o Multipliero o 18o Bo MedicaloExpenseso Rs.52,000/-o Rs.o2,20,000/-o Co FutureoMedicalo Rs.85,000/-o Rs.45,50,000/-o Expenseso Do AttendantoChargeso Rs.43,20,000/-oRs.1,00,000/-o Eo SpecialoDieto Rs.6,00,000/-oo Fo Transportationo o Rs.1,50,000/-o II.o Non-Pecuniaryo o o Ao PainoandoSufferingo Rs.o75,000/-o Rs.15,00,000/-o Bo LossoofoEnjoymento o Rs.5,00,000/-o Co LossoofoAmenitieso o Rs.4,00,000/-o andoMaritaloBlisso o Totalo Rs.7,62,000/-o Rs.1,31,47,200/-o Compensationo o

25.o o Counselo foro theo appellanto furthero submitso thato theo rateo ofo interesto awardedobyotheoLd.oTribunaloi.e.oato9%operoannumofromotheodateoofofilingoofotheo claimopetitionotilloitsopayment,oandosameoshouldobeoenhancedotoo12%obyothisoCourt.o However,olearnedocounseloappearingoonobehalfooforespondentoNo.3o-oInsuranceoCo.,o submitsothatotheorateoofointerestoshouldonotobeomoreothano7.5%operoannum,obecauseo thisoCourtohasobeenofollowingotheoprincipleoofo7.5%operoannumoasorateoofointerestoino o o o o o o 25o o o Thus,obyotakingointooconsiderationotheototalityoofocircumstances,otheo rateoofointerestoisoherebyo modifiedoaso7.5%operoannum,oforotheotimeoperiod,oaso alreadyomentionedoinotheoaward.o o o Accordingly,okeepingoinomindotheoaimsoandoobjectsoofotheobeneficialo legislationoi.e.otooprovideoadequateoreliefotootheoinjuredo/victimoorotheodependanto familyomembers,ototalocompensationoamountotoowhichoappellant/claimantoisoheldo entitledo iso Rs.1,31,47,200/-(Rupeeso Oneo croreo thirty-oneo lacso fortyo seveno thousandoandotwoohundredoonlyo).o o o Thisoamountoshallobeopaidotootheoclaimantowithinoaoperiodoofothreeo monthsofromotheodateoofothisoorder,owithointeresto@o7.5o%operoannumofromotheodateo ofofilingoofotheoclaimopetitionotilloactualorealizationoofotheoamountoofocompensation.o o Itoisofurtheroclarifiedothatoinocaseocompensationoamountodueotoobeopaidoasoono dateoisonotopaidowithinoaforementionedostipulatedoperiod,osameoshallobeopayableotoo theoclaimantoalongowithoapplicableorateoofointeresto@9o%p.a.oo o o And,o ino caseo anyo furthero delayo iso causedo beyondo sixo monthso fromo today,ocompensationoamountopayableoasoonodateowouldobeopaidotootheoclaimantso alongo witho applicableo rateo ofo interesto @12%p.ao fromo theo dateo ofo filingo claimo applicationotilloitsorealization.oooo

26.o o Inoadditionotooall,oitoisoorderedothatoinocase,oanyoexecutionoapplicationo isofiledobyotheoclaimantobeforeolearnedoTribunal,oitowouldoensureothatotheoamounto awardedoforotheopurposeoofohelpingohando(attendantocharges)oandoartificialolimb,oiso adequatelyoutilizedoforotheowellobeingoofotheoclaimant.oApartorecordingosatisfactiono o o o o o o 26o quaotheoexecutionoofotheoorder,olearnedoTribunaloshalloalsoorecordoitsosatisfactionoono theoaforementionedoaspectoalso.o

27.oo o Needlesso too mentiono thato outo ofo theo totalo payableo compensationo amount,oalreadyopaidoamounto(ifoany)oinocomplianceotootheoimpugnedoaward,owouldo beoadjusted.oo o o Therefore,obyomodifyingotheoaward,opresentoappealoisoallowedowithotheo termsoindicatedohere-above.o Disposed of.

February 14, 2025 (SANJAY VASHISTH) rashmi JUDGE

1.oWhetherospeaking/reasoned?oo o o Yes/Noo

2.oWhetheroreportable?o o o o Yes/Noo