Jaswant Singh v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors

IN

Jaswant Singh

Ramesh Kumar CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Ms Mr for

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The

29.07.2006 pass Act, 1988 by the Tribunal' vide w FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri (deceased) alon Muzafra to Am

9.15 p.m. when three-wheeler st correct left hand son namely, Jas wheeler could b

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da

Versus and others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.Parminder Singh, Advocate the appellant. s. Simran, Advocate for r. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate and respondent No.3 – Insurance Co r. B. R. Rana, Advocate for respo -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been pr sed in the claim petition under e learned Motor Accident Claim which the claim petition filed by N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are tha ngwith his son Baljinder Sing mbala City by driving three-whee they reached near village Bulla topped running due to some me d side of the road on kacha berm swant Singh to come with candl be checked and repaired. At abo

NJAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-130-2007 (O&M) ate of Decision : 05.09.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA

o. ondent No.5. referred against the award da Section 166 of the Motor Vehic ms Tribunal, Ambala (for short - ' the claimant was dismissed. at on 02-04-1999, Surjan Sin gh was going from Petrol Pum eler No.HR-01-GA-0359. At ab ana on Hissar to Ambala road, th echanical defect. He took it to m and called telephonically his ot es and tools, etc., so that the thr out 10.00 p.m. when the decease

ated cles 'the ngh mp, bout heir ther ree-ed –

Surjan Singh wa checking/repairi meantime, one Ambala side bei Y-0208, which was perhaps try went on the ext three persons pr three persons su dragged with th its driver and th to Civil Hospita account of injur account of sole, driven by respon

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

as holding candle in his hand Ja ing three-wheeler with the h maruti car bearing registratio ing followed by another maruti C was being driven rashly and n ying to overtake the car going reme wrong side of the road on resent there as well as against th uffered multiple, simple and gr he car up to some distance and th hen fled away from the spot with al, Ambala City, but Surjan Sing ries suffered by him in the acc rash and negligent driving of m ndent no.1. on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties, "Whether Surjan Singh died Singh received injuries in negligent driving of Ma respondent no.1-Ramesh Kum

ii) If issue no.1 is proved, to any, the petitioners are entitl OPP.

aswant Singh was in the process help of Baljinder Singh, in on No.HR-26-D-0062 came fr Car bearing registration No. PB-negligently by respondent no.1 ahead and in that process said n kacha berm and hit against all he three wheeler. As a result, all rievous injuries. Surjan Singh w hen the car was put in back gear h the car. All the injured were tak gh died on reaching the hospital cident. The accident took place maruti car No. PB-10-Y-0208, be , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow d and Baljinder Singh and Jasw accident caused due to rash a aruti Car No.PB-10-Y-0208 mar? OPP. o what amount of compensation led to and from which responden

s of rom car was r by ken l on on eing nied wing want by n, if nts?

5.

Aft record, the lear appellant filed th SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea Tribunal did n perspective and

7.

Per Company conte rightly been dism

8.

I h record of this ca "15 in t as P to b

16.

¶02thre dev on Jas aut

iii) Whether respondent n compensation, on the ground

iv) Relief" ter hearing learned counsel for rned Tribunal dismissed the cl he present appeal for grant of co S OF THE COUNSEL FOR T arned counsel for the claimant-a not take into consideration th has wrongly dismissed the claim r contra, learned counsel for ends that the claim petition fil missed. have heard learned counsel for ase. Relevant portion of the judgm

¶5In support of their case clai the witness box as PW2 and clai PW3. Both these witnesses are th be the son of deceased Surjan Sin

In his deposition PW3 Balj

04.99, he was returning from vi ee-wheeler. While they were veloped in the three-wheeler. Th one side of the road and he swant Singh to the spot as Jaswa to-mechanic. Jaswant Singh rea

no.3 is not liable to pay a ds alleged? OPR. the parties and perusing the wh aim petition. Hence the claima ompensation. HE PARTIES appellant contends that the learn e evidence on record in corr m petition filed by the claimant. r the respondent No.3-Insura led by the appellant-claimant the parties and perused the wh ment is reproduced hereunder:- imant Jaswant Singh has appea mant Baljinder Singh has appea he injured persons and also happ ngh. inder Singh stated on oath that illage Matrehri to Ambala city o near village Balana, some fa They then parked the three-whee called telephonically his brot ant Singh was learning the work ached at about 9.00 p.m. While

any hole ant-ned rect ance has hole ared ared pen t on on a fault eler ther k of

fath thre whe car whe num oth die had Ho he

¶17resp adm has how Car

¶18resp was cla acc adm mop pla

her Surjan Singh and Jaswant ee-wheeler and he (i.e.PW3) w eeler, in the meantime two cars r, which was running in a zigzag eeler and the other car stopped mber of offending car was PB-her car was HR-26D-0062. In sa ed on account of those injuries o d sustained injuries on his legs a spital, Ambala City for about 15 has to take the medicines for abo

During his cross examina pondent no.2, previous owne mitted that FIR was recovered o s mentioned the number of offe wever, denied the suggestion th r No.0062 and not by car numbe

During his further cross exam pondents no.1 & 2A, driver an 08, he admitted that he had not s s laying under the three-wheel rified that his brother Jaswant cident that accident had been c mitted that his brother Jaswant ped. He however, denied that ac ace. He also denied the suggest

Singh were sitting in front of was applying the jack to the thr came from Ambala side. The fr g manner, struck against their thr d at the back of offending car. T 10-Y-0208 whereas the number aid accident injuries and his fat n reaching the hospital. He him and had remained admitted in C 5/20 days. Even after his discha out 5/6 months. tion, as conducted on behalf er of car No.PB-10-Y-0208, on basis of his statement wherein ending car as HR-26-D-0062. H hat accident was caused by Mar er 0208. mination, as conducted on behalf nd new owner of car No.PB-10 seen the accident taking place as ler and was applying the jack. t Singh told him after 4/5 days caused by car No.0208. He furt t Singh had come to the spot o ccident of the moped had also ta tion that the accident actually to

ree-ront ree-The r of ther self Civil arge f of he n he He, ruti lf of 0-Y-s he He s of ther n a ken

pla sug whe his

¶19resp adm he tha acc acc sta dam

¶20Jas on his visi kat bro atte tho whe sus also acc

ace between three-wheeler and ggestion that car no.0208 came l eeler. He admitted that three-wh father, who was driving the sam During his cross examinati pondents no.4 & 5, previous ow mitted that both cars had stopped was unable to walk due to the i at head-light of any of those tw cident. He however, admitted cident had also been damaged tion he saw only car No.0208 mage on car No. 0208.

Coming to the deposition of swant Singh, who appeared in th record in his statement that on elder brother that their three-w ited the spot and found that t tcha portion of Hisar-Ambala other started applying the jack. empting to overtake each other ose cars, bearing no. PB-10-Y-eeler. As a result of said accide stains injuries. His brother Baljin o sustained injuries. His brother count of those injuries on reachi

d the moped. He also denied later on and just touched the thr heeler in question was belonging me on the day of accident. ion, as conducted on behalf wner of car No.HR-26-D-0062, d at the place of accident, but si injuries on his leg, he had not s wo cars had been damaged in that the car, which caused d and that when he visited po there, but he did not notice a the only other eye-witness, nam he witness-box as PW2, it has co receiving telephonic message fr wheeler had gone out of order, three wheeler was parked on road near village Balana. H In the meantime two maruti ca came from Ambala side and one -0208, dashed against their thr ent, he was thrown on one side a nder Singh and father Surjan Sin r however, died on the same day ing Civil Hospital, Ambala City.

ree-g to f of he ince een lice any ely, ome rom he His ars, e of ree-ngh y on

him was day bec Am offe

¶21resp offe adm tak of t den mop wh was sug thre no. atte

¶22upo Gup

mself had sustained injuries ove s referred to PGI, Chandigarh, w ys. He further deposed that im came unconscious and regained e accident. Police then recorded mbala from Chandigarh, wher fending car to the police. During his cross examinati pondent no.1 & 2-A driver an 08, he admitted that he became e accident. He alleged that he or fending car and had not noted mitted that his brother Baljinde king place and that he told him ( the offending car only after ret nied the suggestion that accide ped. He volunteered, to add tha ich he had parked in front of s also damaged on its being h ggestion that the accident had ee-wheeler and the moped. He a 0208 has simply touched those empting to over-take car no.0062

In their documentary eviden on copy of charge sheet (Exh.P1 pta, Judicial Magistrate, Am

er his head, left palm and leg a where he remained admitted for mmediately after the accident, the consciousness after 3/4 days d his statement after his return rein he disclosed the number ion, as conducted on behalf nd new owner of car No.PB-10 unconscious within 2/3 minutes rally remembered the number of d down same anywhere. He a er Singh had not seen the accid (i.e. to Baljinder Singh) the num turning from PGI, Chandigarh. ent had already taken place w t he had gone to the spot on mop the three-wheeler and said mop it by the same car. He denied already taken place between also denied the suggestion that vehicles and that said car was

¶2nce, claimants have placed relia 1), whereby the court of Sh. Deep bala has framed charges un

he s of n to of f of 0-Y-s of f the also dent mber He with ped ped car not nce pak

sec i.e. (Ex pol aga mo sta

¶23Ahl rec of J by sta bas (Ex pla Inv que mec of m

¶24as R car pur

8.3 whe

ctions 304-A, 279,337, IPC again respondents No.1 & 5, copy of xh.P2), whereby final report ha lice against respondents no.1 & ainst unknown driver of car rtem report (Exh.P4) of Surjan tement of Baljinder Singh (Mark

On the other hand, responde lmad to the court of Sh.Y.S.Rath cord the statement (Exh.R1) of B Jaswant Singh and statement (Ex the court of Illaqa Magistrat tement (Exh.R4) of Baljinder Si sis of which FIR of the prese xh.R4) under section 161, Cr.P ace (Exh.R5) of the place vestigating Officer, mechanica estion, mechanical report (Exh. chanical report (Exh.R8) of car mechanical report (Exh.R9) of ca

Ramesh Kumar, respondent RW2 and deposed that on the d r bearing number PB-10-Y-0208 rchased by Jai Pal, respondent 30 p.m. when he reached near eeler and a luna (mopad) had m

nst Ramesh Kumar and Raj Kum f report under section 173, Cr.P as been furnished to the court 5, copy of FIR (Exh.P3), as lodg no.HR-26-D-0062, copy of p n Singh and copy of supplement k-A). ents examined Aurn Sharma (RW hore, ACJM, Ambala. He placed Baljinder Singh, statement (Exh.R xh.R3) of Inder Mohan as record te. He also placed on record ingh, as recorded by the police ent case was recorded, statem P.C. of Inder Mohan, rough s of occurrence as prepared al report (Exh.R6) of moped R7) of three-wheeler in questi r number PB-10-Y-0208 and c ar number HR-26-D-0062. no.1, appeared in the witness b day of accident he was going in 8 at a moderate speed, said car w no.2-A, on the same day. At ab r village Balana, he saw a thr met with an accident. It was dark

mar, P.C. t by dged post tary W1), d on R2) ded e on ment site-by in ion, opy box his was bout ree-

tha dar too acc whe

¶25resp adm suff whe

¶26of t 26-any imp he Sh. own

¶27Ins wit to per resp adm

at time. He stopped there for a rkness his car just touched thr ok place with his car. He had cident with said three-wheeler an eeler and two-wheeler (moped).

During his cross-examinat pondents no.4 & 5, owner and d mitted that his car was damaged ffered minor injuries due to th eeler.

During his further cross-exa the claimants, he shown his inab -D-0062 was following his car. H y complaint before any highe plication in the accident in quest had since been acquitted in s Y.S. Rathore, ACJM, Ambala. ner of car No.HR-26-D-0062.

During his further cross-exa urance company of car no.PB-1 th new owner of his car i.e, Jaip be the grandson of his uncle. rsonally Amarjeet Kaushal, Ve pondents no.2, 4, 4-A & 5. He f e criminal case wherein he ha mitted that no other car was run

while to see the accident. Due ree-wheeler, however, no accid d not seen any other car caus nd the accident was between thr

tion, as conducted on behalf driver of car No.HR-26-D-0062. d in said accident and that he a he impact of his car with thr amination, as conducted on beh bility in saying whether car no.H He admitted that he had not mo er authority regarding his fa tion by the police. He admitted t aid criminal case by the court He denied knowing any Virp amination as conducted on behalf 10-Y-0208, he admitted his relat al, respondent no.2A, who happ He further that he do not kn eer Pal Raj Kumar, and Tejin further admitted that he was fac as since been acquitted. He a nning alongwith his car. He sho

e to dent sing ree-f of He also ree-half HR-ved alse that t of pal, lf of tion pens now nder cing also

his as d ser

¶28D-0 tha resp rea stan mo he on

¶29cla as adm bea He No. rep

¶30Ins nei trav

ignorance that in the present p driver of car No.HR26-D-0062 a rved upon him through Veer Pal.

Respondent No.5, Raj Kuma 0062, has also appeared in the at on 02.04.99 he was driver pondent no.4. On that day he ached near village Balana, he nding near the road in an acci e side of those accidental vehicle e road and had not come down rning, when he was called by th came to know there that his car offending vehicle.

During his cross examinatio imants, he admitted that he was the owner used to call him occ mitted that on the day of acci aring No. PB-10-Y-0208 running had never informed the police .PB-10-Y-0208. He admitted presentation before any authori

During his further cross exa urance Company of car No.P ither Veer Pal nor Tejinder Sin veling with him in said car.

proceedings he was initially sho and at that stage his summons w

ar, the driver of the car No.HR-witness box as RW3 and depo on said car owned by Veer P was going on said car and wh saw a scooty and three-whee ident condition. He just crossed es alongwith other vehicle plying from his car. It was only on n he police to the police station, t has been shown in said acciden on, as conducted on behalf of not a permanent driver on said casionally on daily labor basis. ident he had not noticed any g in front of his car or near his c e that accident was caused by that he had not made a ty regarding his false implicati mination as conducted on behalf PB-10-Y-0208, he admitted t ngh, respondents No.4 & 4A, w

own were osed Pal, hen eler d by g on next that t as car He car car. car any ion. lf of that

¶31del car Kau

¶10(Ex

¶32wit his he cha stre acc

¶10at inte pla Bal Sin rea acc at reg rec sub

Counsel for respondent no livery-receipt (Exh.R10) dated 0 r NO.PB-10-Y-0208 by Jaipal, ushal, respondent no.2 on 02

04.99 of the possession of sa xh.R12) dated 08.04.99.

Counsel for claimant submit 08, i.e. Ramesh Kumar respond tness box as RW2 has admitted car just touched with the three-w himself suffered minor injuries allaned by the police for causing essed that the mechanical repor cidental marks thereupon. The 00 p.m. on 02.04.99 and FIR (E about 1.30 a.m. on 03.04.99 by ervening time has duly been exp ace at a distance of about eight k ljinder Singh and his brother Jas ngh were brought to the hosp aching the hospital and Jaswan count of his serious condition an Civil Hospital, Ambala City garding their arrival upon whic corded the statement of injure bmitted on behalf of the claiman

o.2 tendered on record origi

02.04.99 regarding the purchase respondent no.2-A from Amarj

2.04.99, receipt (Exh.R11) da id car by Jaipal and applicat tted that driver of car No. PB-10 dent no.1, while appearing in in very words that due to darkn wheeler and was damaged and t due to that impact and that he w g the accident in question. It is a rt (Exh.R8) of said car also sho accident has taken place at ab Exh.P3) was promptly got record y injured Baljinder Singh and plained that the accident has ta kilometer from Ambala and inju swant alongwith their father Surj pital, but Surjan Singh died af nt referred to PGI, Chandigarh nd Baljinder Singh was hospitali and a medical ruqqa was s ch police reached the hospital a ed Baljinder Singh. It is furt nts that although FIR is against

inal e of jeet ated tion 0-Y-ness that was also ows bout ded ken ured rjan fter on ized sent ther

unk inv resp pol bot (Ex Bot Sin PB res Sin

¶33tha sta is w whe ind sam a fa

¶34all cha orig

known driver of Maruti Car N vestigation drivers of both the ponsible for causing the accid lice submitted report under sect th of them and the Illaqa Mag xh.P1) against both of them for th the injured persons, namely, J ngh (PW3) had deposed in same d, therefore, Ramesh Kumar, r -10-Y-0208 be held responsible ulting into the death of Surjan S ngh and Jaswant Singh. On the other hand, counsel fo at both the drivers of cars in tement just to support the claim writ at large in their pleadings erein he had admitted the accide ere is no evidence at all estab dependent eye witness of the occ e injured persons self establish me are and the concocted version false claim from the Insurance Co

In support of his stand, cou pointed out the manner in w anged their pleadings from stag ginal petition as filed on 25.05.1

N.HR-26-D0062 alone, but dur e cars were found negligent a dent in question and accordin tion 173, Cr.P.C. (Exh.P2) aga gistrate also framed charge-sh r causing the accident in questi Jaswant Singh (PW2) and Baljin e tune against respondent no.1 o respondent no.1, driver of car N e for causing accident in quest Singh and bodily injuries to Balji or Insurance Company pointed n question have made a tailo mants as the collusion between th even and if the deposition of RW ent in very words, is put aside, th blishing any accident. There is currence and the deposition of b hes prima-facie contradictory t ns projected by the witnesses to ompany. nsel for insurance company firs which parties to the proceedi ge to stage. It is shown that in 1999 claimants have shown Ram

ring ngly inst heet ion. nder only No. tion ider out ored hem W2, hen both that get st of ings

Kum own tha veh cou No. rep HR

¶35Y-0 Cou ove am ma Tej cla for bea acc off. am Kau Ori

mar as the driver of car no.H ner of said car and there was

¶08In order dated 28-09-99 the at the learned counsel for both hicle in question was no insured unsel is presently representing R . PB-10-Y-0208 and its own presenting Veer Pal, who has be R-26-D-0062.

Thereafter, petitioner moved e petition incorporating Ramesh 0208, Veer Pal as well as one R d there was surprisingly no ref unsel for respondents no.162 a er said application and same ended petition filed. However, c de a statement 20.10.2000 for jinder Singh Mann, respondents im petition as from the Insuran respondent no.1 it has come o aring no. PB-10-Y-0208 is own count of said statement name of f Counsel for claimant then endment for amendment petition ushal, owner of car No.PB-10 iental Insurance Company as

HR-26-D0062 and Veer Pal as no reference of car no.PB-10 Tribunal has made an observat these respondents has stated t d at the time of accident. The sa Ramesh Kumar as a driver of ner Amarjit Kaushal, but is een shown as the owner of car d an application for amendmen Kumar as driver of car No.PB-Rajinder Singh Maan as its ow ference of car no. HR-26-D-00 appended his note of no-object e was accordingly accepted a counsel for claimants thereafter r striking of names Veer Pal a s no.2 & 2A, respectively, from nce Particulars supplied by coun on record that vehicle in quest ned by one Amarjit Kaushal. f both said respondents were str again moved an application n seeking incorporation of Ama 0-Y-0208 as respondent no.2 a s respondent no.3. Counsel

0-Y-tion that ame car not no. t of wner

¶062tion r on nsel tion On ruck for arjit

resp allo allo

¶36file for on veh who

¶20as resp beh Ram tha of h Am

¶37of c esta rec (Ex Am sam

pondent no.1 made a stateme owing the amendment applica owed and amended petition was f

Thereafter, respondents filed ed replication and issues were fra evidence. Again claimants mov

19.08.02 seeking incorporation hicles as respondents. Veer Pal o were previously shown as o 08 and whose name were subse

10.2000, were again impleaded respondents no.4 & 4A being o

¶62Counsel for respondent n pondent no.2A-Jai Pal Singh, a half. It is not out of place to men mesh Kumar, while appearing in at said Jai Pal is in his relations his uncle. RW2 has further dep marjit Kaushal, i.e. respondent no

Both Amarjit Kaushal and car No.PB-10-Y-0208. There is n ablish the ownership. Only docu ceipt (Exh.R10) and a receip xh.R11), as tendered in evidenc marjit Kaushal, respondent no.2. me was exhibited on 02.04.1999

ent that he has no objection ation and same was accordin filed on 14.03.01. d their written statement, claima amed on 20.02.02 and case was ved an application for amendme of the drivers & owners of both Singh and Tejinder Singh Man wners of maruti car No.PB-10 quently struck off vide order da d in the application for amendm owners of maruti car No.HR-26 no.1 also appeared on behalf and filed written statement on ntion here that respondent no.1 n witness box as RW2 has admit s as he happens to be the grand posed that he does not known a o.2. Jai Pal has been shown as own no RC of said, vehicle on record uments in this regard are a deliv pt of resumption of possess ce by Sh.B S Jaspal, Advocate, . A perusal of Exh.R10 shows t 9, 1.e. on the day of accident its

in ngly ants put ents nna, 0-Y-ated ment 6-D-f of his i.e. tted dson any ners d to very sion for that self,

by

¶02Kau rec Adv Am Ran resp cla Ran

¶38no. reg Illa reg coo Jai sign con Sun Ram Thu pur Sai

Jai Pal, respondent no.2A, adm

04.1999 at 5.00 p.m. on the pa ushal and that he has taken the ceipt is signed by Jai Pal and atte vocate. There is no signature of marjit Kaushal, on said documen ngi Ram to this document is pondents no.1-Ramesh Kumar ( e record that the name of said R im petitions as son of one Desh e witness box Ramesh Kumar ha ngi Ram.

A perusal of Exh.Bll furthe 2A, has resumed the possession gistered owner i.e. Sh. Amarjit K aqa Magistrate has ordered for t gistered owner. He has also operation of the registered owne i Pal has been identified by one nature on 10.04.99 itself. Aga ntain any signature of the regis nil Kumar is non else, but the mesh Kumar, as admitted by R us, the father of Ramesh Kum rchase of car No. PB-10-Y-020 id car has been shown as on

mitting his purchase of said car ayment of Rs.1,42,000/- to Ama e possession thereof. Said deliv ested by Rangi Ram and B S Jas f the then owner of the vehicle nt and it raises a suspicion. Witn no other, but tha father of

(RW2). It is also very disturbing Ramesh Kumar is appearing in heyo Ram whereas while coming as admitted himself to be the son er shows that Jai Pal, respond n of car No. PB-10-Y-0208 from Kaushal on 10.04.99 as the cour the release of vehicle in the name shown his thankfulness for er. It is duly signed by Jai Pal a e Sunil Kumar who had affixed ain this document also does stered owner i.e. Amarjit Kaush e real brother of respondent no Ramesh Kumar in the witness b mar was a witness to the alleg 08 on 02.04.99 at about 5.00 p offending car in the accident

r on arjit very spal i.e. ness g on g in n of dent m its rt of e of his not hal. o.1-box. ged p.m.

que wh has alle Am fav aga ass It is i.e.

¶39Ins cla file Sin LRs

¶40tha und jac was Sur hou whe

estion which has taken place on ile being driven by Ramesh Kum s been shown as a witness to th eged new purchaser Jai Pal fr marjit Kaushal on 10.04.99 afte vour of registered owner. At the ainst that there is no RC of said sertions of respondents and their s also not out of place to note he maruti car No.HR-26-D-0062, i

Coming to the depositions urance Company pointed out imants also for their personal ed separate claim petition, and a ngh, regarding which a separate s of Surjan Singh including PW2 ere is no other independent witne

A perusal of the deposition at he had not seen the happenin der the three-wheeler at the tim ck for its repairs. He admitted it s his brother Jaswant Singh (PW e accident that the accident h rprisingly, the FIR (Exh.P3) of t urs of the accident on the basis erein he has given the minute de

n 02.04.99 at about 9.00/10.00 p mar. The brother of Ramesh Kum he resumption of said vehicle by from the alleged registered ow er it being released on superari e cots repetition, it has to be no d vehicle on record to support r documents Exh. R10 & Exh. R-ere that the RC of the other vehi is also not on record. s of PW2 & PW3, counsel that both these Witnesses are injures, regarding which they h are also the LRs of deceased Surj e petition has been filed by all 2 & PW3. It is also pointed out t ess of the occurrence. n of Baljinder Singh (PW3) sho ng of the accident as he was ly me of accident and was applying t in very words and clarified tha W3) who told him after 4-5 days had been caused by Car No.2 the case was registered within f of the statement of Baljinder Sin etails of the occurrence and has

p.m. mar y its wner i in oted -11. cle, for had rjan that ows ying at it s of

¶208four ngh

utte sta dra bac grin was oth

¶41occ cla pla Jas

¶42acc 3-4 oth imm adm he adm unc bro of t

ered a single word about car ted therein is that there were tw e first car crossed them and there eir three-wheeler causing injurie d the body of his father entan agged it to a certain distance an ckwards and then ran from th nding machine of floors was the s also sitting with them, had t her persons to the hospital.

Said Inder Mohan was admit currence, but he has not been imants.PW3 has admitted that h ace, therefore, the only witnes swant Singh (PW2).

Jaswant Singh (PW2) had d cident he became unconscious an 4 days of the accident as he has her parts of the body. His cond mediately referred to PGI, C mitted for 3-4 days. It was only disclosed the number of the offen mitted that within 2-3 minute conscious. Prior to his disclosin other and to the police, his broth the occurrence within four hou

No. PB-10-Y-0208. What he h wo cars coming at a fast speed a eafter the second car struck aga es to him as well as to his brot ngled underneath said car, wh d then the car driver driven his e spot. One Inder Mohan, wh erein in the three-wheeler and w then shifted them with the help ttedly an independent witness of called in the witness box by he had not seen the accident tak ss to prove the accident rema deposed that immediately after nd regained his consciousness af suffered injuries over his head a dition was so critical that he w Chandigarh where he remain after his return from the PGI t nding car to the police. He has a es of the accident he has beco ng the name of offending car to her has already got lodged an F urs of the accident against anot

had inst ther hich car hose who p of f the king ains fter was ned that also ome his FIR

car also hos mo rec one acc dam veh occ ora dow his be PW dow lan

¶43by tha mea res his num

r. Both these brothers i.e. PW2 o sustained grievous injures a spitalized for a number of days a nths altogether, but none of the cord of any of them or their MLR eir medicines and treatment. Th e of their three-wheeler and mop cident, but they had not claim mges and have also not placed o hicles to support their assertions currence. In such a situation the ally remembered the number of t wn same anywhere and then tol brother after returning from P natural and trustworthy. It is ag W2 was having such a balanced m wn the number of offending veh nce even after becoming unconsc

Otherwise also the manner o PW2 and PW3 does not depict at PW3 started applying the jac antime offending car dashed a ult of which he himself was thro brother and father suffered inj e cars had stopped at the spot mber of any of the cars. Then i

& PW3, has alleged that they h and for which they had to rem and have to take the treatment f em had placed on record treatm Rs or expenses incurred by them hey are from labourer section a ped had also been damaged in s med any re-imbursement for th on record any bills regarding th s. They had lost their father in s e as assertion made by PW2 that the offending car and had not no ld the number to the police and PGI, Chandigarh does not seems gainst natural course of events t mind at that stage that he had no hicle and kept same in his mem cious for hours altogether. of the alleged occurrence narra the true picture. PW2 has depo ck to the three-wheeler and in against their three-wheeler as own on one side and he as well juries. He had not stated that b t or that he had noted down it is quite strange how he depo

had main four ment m on said hose hose said t he oted d to s to that oted mory ated osed s a l as both

tha offe rec PW from cam not wh offe tha whe whe only In offe inju whe he dam Sin dire wit

at the number of the other car fending car was attempting to o cord that PW3 was laying under e jack for repairing the three-w W3, he cannot be heard to allege m Ambala side out of which on d struck against their three-wh me and stopped at the back of t te here that this witnesses has l ich had stopped behind the offe e number of this second car in hi fending car. What is most notew at he has alleged that when he sta eeler, his father and brother J eeler and the offending car had ly and then injures were suffered other words the father and the e opposite side of the three whe fending car has stuck against the ured person further gets. supp erein he has alleged that he had had parked in front of the three maged on being hit by the same ngh, father of PW2 & PW3, a ection from which the offending tnesses must have deposed that th

was HR-26-D-0062 to which overtake. Similarly, it has come r the three-wheeler and was try wheeler. In such of a situation e that he had seen two cars com ne was running in zig-zag man eeler and the other car thereaf the offending car. It is pertinen lodged FIR against said other ending car and he had even quo is FIR as calling the same to be worthy in the deposition of PW3 arted applying the jack to the thr Jaswant set in front of the thr d struck against their three-whee d by the claimants and their fath brother of PW3 must be sitting eeler then the side from which three wheeler. This situation of port from the deposition of P d gone to the spot on moped wh e wheeler and said moped was a e car. Had said moped and Surj long with PW3 were towards g vehicle was coming, then both he offending car first struck aga

on ying n of ming nner fter t to car oted e an 3 is ree-ree-eler her. g on f the PW2 hich also rjan

cas offe FIR of t car alo tha car who

¶44PW RW till cla

¶45tha alle tha suff doc esta cla ANALYSIS OF

9.

A p car No.PB-10-Y

em and then hit their three wheel se. Meaning thereby that as per fending car first struck against th R (Exh.P3) as recorded on basis the Surjan Singh entangled und r driver then reversed his car an ongwith his car. However, the as at the other car bearing no.HR-2 r and then stopped at the back ole of the deposition of PW3 as s Resultantly, no reliance can b W2 & PW3 as well as upon the W1, whose identity has remained end and who was certainly imants.

In view of the findings as ab at the death of Surjan Singh has eged by the claimants. Claimant at Jaswant Singh (PW2) and Ba ffered any injury in said ac cumentary evidence nor any de ablish the same. Accordingly, imants. F RECORD perusal of the record shows that Y-0208 filed written statement,

ler, but that is not so in the pres r the assertions of PW2 & PW3 heir moped. It has also come in s of statement of PW3, that the bo derneath the offending car and nd then car ran away from the s ssertion of PW3 in the witness b 26-D-0062 came after the offend side of the offending car turns self contradictory. be placed upon the depositions e alleged admission of accident d doubtful from the very beginn appearing in collusion with bove, claimants have failed to pr actually taken place in the man ts have also miserly failed to pr aljinder Singh (PW3) have actua ccident as there is neither a eposition of the treating doctor this issued is decided against t respondent No.1 i.e. driver of wherein, he admitted that his

sent ody spot box ding s of t by ning rove nner rove ally any r to

was going from his car but denie

10.

Res pleaded by filin further pleaded and on visiting standing there in must have been following his ca

11.

Jas PW3. Both are both PW-2 and same. Documen were framed un Kumar, i.e. resp 173, Cr.P.C. (E against responde driver of car no Singh and copy

12.

Mr court of Sh.Y.S (Exh.R1) of Ba (Exh.R3) of Ind record the state basis of which section 161, Cr

m Ambala and other car bearing ed the factum of accident. spondent No.4 i.e. owner of the c ng written statement that no acc that he was called by the police g there he saw another car bea n a damaged condition. He furt n caused by the said car No.P ar on the day of accident. want Singh appeared as PW2 the injured persons and also son PW-3 injured in the accident w ntary evidence i.e. copy of charg nder sections 304-A, 279,337, IP pondents No.1 and 5 was produ Exh.P2), whereby final report wa ents no.1 and 5, copy of FIR (E o.HR-26-D-0062, copy of post of supplementary statement of B r. Arjun Sharma was examined S.Rathore, ACJM, Ambala. He ljinder Singh, statement (Exh.R der Mohan as recorded by the Il ement (Exh.R4) of Baljinder Si FIR of the present case was reg r.P.C. of Inder Mohan, rough s

HR-26D-0062 was going ahead car No.HR-26D-0062 appeared cident took place with his car. e along with his driver and the c aring registration No.PB-10Y-02 ther stated that the accident, if a PB-10Y-0208 as the said car w and Baljinder Singh appeared ns of deceased Surjan Singh. Si were the best eye witnesses to ge sheet (Exh.P1), whereby char PC against Ramesh Kumar and uced. Copy of report under sect as furnished to the court by pol Exh.P3), as lodged against unkno mortem report (Exh.P4) of Sur Baljinder Singh (Mark-A). as RW1, who was Ahlmad to e placed on record the statem R2) of Jaswant Singh and statem llaqa Magistrate. He also placed ngh, as recorded by the police gistered, statement (Exh.R4) un ite-plan (Exh.R5) of the place

d of He car, any, was d as nce rges Raj tion lice own rjan ment ment d on on nder

occurrence as p moped in quest mechanical repo report (Exh.R9)

13.

Ram and deposed tha Y-0208 at a mod on the same day village Balana, accident. It was Due to darknes with his car. He with said three wheeler (mope respondents no. that his car wa injuries due to th further stated th regarding his f admitted that he Rathore, ACJM Insurance comp criminal case an 0208, i.e. Rame due to darkness that he himself

prepared by Investigating Offic tion, mechanical report (Exh. ort (Exh.R8) of car number PB-1 of car number HR-26-D-0062. mesh Kumar, respondent no.1, a at on the day of accident he was g derate speed, said car was purch y. He further stated that at abou he saw a three-wheeler and dark at that time. He stopped th s his car touched three-wheeler e further stated that he had not s -wheeler and the accident was d). During his cross-examinat 4 and 5, owner and driver of ca as damaged in the said acciden he impact of a car with three-wh hat he had not moved any com false implication in the accide e had been acquitted in said crim M, Ambala. In his cross-examin pany of car no.PB-10-Y-0208, nd he was acquitted in the sam esh Kumar respondent no.1, wh his car just touched with the th suffered minor injuries due to th

er, mechanical report (Exh.R6) R7) of three-wheeler in questi 10-Y-0208 and copy of mechani appeared in the witness box as RW going in his car bearing No. PB-hased by Jai Pal, respondent no.2 ut 8.30 p.m. when he reached n a luna (moped) had met with here for a while to see the accide r, however, no accident took pl seen any other car causing accid s between three-wheeler and tw tion, as conducted on behalf ar No.HR-26-D-0062. He admit nt and that he also suffered mi heeler. In his cross-examination mplaint before any higher autho nt in question by the police. minal case by the court of Sh.Y nation as conducted on behalf , he admitted that he was fac me. The driver of car No.PB-10 ho appeared as RW2 admitted t hree-wheeler and was damaged hat impact and he was challaned

) of ion, ical W2 2-A, near an ent. lace dent wo-f of tted inor , he rity He Y.S. f of cing 0Y-that

the police for ca car also shows a at about 10.00 a.m. on 03.04.1 his brother Jas hospital, but Su referred to PGI Singh was hospi regarding their statement of inju were found neg accordingly pol both of them an causing the acci

14.

Bot against respond driver of car N question resultin Singh and Jaswa

15.

Lea cannot be place admission of acc

16.

As well as injuries and PW-3 are Tribunal totally

ausing the accident in question. M accidental marks thereupon. The p.m. and FIR (Exh.P3) was pro 999 by injured Baljinder Singh want alongwith their father S urjan Singh died after reaching t I, Chandigarh on account of hi italized at Civil Hospital, Ambal arrival upon which police reac ured Baljinder Singh. During inv gligent and responsible for cau lice submitted report under sect nd the charge-sheet (Exh.P1) wa ident in question. th Jaswant Singh (PW2) and dent no.1 only and, therefore, No. PB-10-Y-0208 was held re ng into the death of Surjan Sing ant Singh. arned Tribunal dismissed the cla ed upon the depositions of PW cident by RW-1. discussed above, this Court fin to PW-2 and PW-3 and death o best witnesses, who are eye w ignored the statements of the w

Mechanical report (Exh.R8) of s e accident took place on 02.04.19 omptly got recorded at about 1 h. The injured Baljinder Singh a Surjan Singh were brought to the hospital and Jaswant Singh w is serious condition and Baljin la City and a medical ruqa was s ched the hospital and recorded vestigation, drivers of both the c using the accident in question tion 173, Cr.P.C. (Exh.P2) agai as framed against both of them Baljinder Singh (PW3) depo Ramesh Kumar, respondent no esponsible for causing accident gh and bodily injuries to Baljin aim petition by stating that relia W-2 and PW-3 as well as alleg nds that the factum of accident of Surjan Singh are proved. PW witnesses as well and the learn witnesses, presenting of challan

said

1.30 was nder sent cars inst for osed o.1, t in nder ance ged t as W-2

charges framed report of Surjan

17.

On precedent, the a vitiated by a com SETTLED LAW

18.

Ho compensation w RajKumar Vs. has held as unde Gen

¶5ma com res awa wro equ dam or disa be suff com tho inju

against respondents, mechanic Singh etc. n the touchstone of hereinabov award dated 29.07.2006 passed b mplete absence of judicial applic W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court has set with respect to the disability. Ajay Kumar and Another (20 er:- neral principles relating to comp The provision of the Motor Ve kes it clear that the award mpensation should, to the exte tore the claimant to the position arding damages is to make goo ong done as far as money can uitable manner. The court or mages objectively and exclude f fancy, though some conjecture ability and its consequences, is compensated for the physical inj ffered as a result of such inju mpensated for his inability to le ose normal amenities which he uries, and his inability to earn a

al reports of vehicles, postmort ve discussed findings and judi by learned Tribunal, Ambala sta cation of mind. ttled the law regarding grant The Apex Court in the case 011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 3 mpensation in injury cases Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for sho must be just, which means t ent possible, fully and adequa prior to the accident. The objec od the loss suffered as a result n do so, in a fair, reasonable a tribunal shall have to assess from consideration any speculat e with reference to the nature inevitable. A person is not only njury, but also for the loss which ury. This means that he is to ead a full life, his inability to en e would have enjoyed but for as much as he used to earn or co

tem cial ands t of e of 343, ort) that tely ct of t of tion e of y to h he be njoy

hav Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

(vi) In r und whe of t hea acc am exp

ve earned. (See C.K. Subramoni 70 Supreme Court 376, R.D. H d., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v The heads under which com ury cases are the following : cuniary damages (Special Dama Expenses relating to treatm nsportation, nourishing food, an Loss of earnings (and other ga de had he not been injured, comp

(a) Loss of earning during th

(b) Loss of future earnings on ) Future medical expenses. N mages) ) Damages for pain, suffering an uries. Loss of amenities (and/or loss of ) Loss of expectation of life (shor routine personal injury cases, c der heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It ere there is specific medical ev the claimant, that compensation ads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) rel count of permanent disability, enities (and/or loss of prosp pectation of life.

ia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, A Hattangadi v. Pest Control (Ind v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467). mpensation is awarded in perso ages) ment, hospitalization, medicin nd miscellaneous expenditure. ains) which the injured would h mprising : he period of treatment; n account of permanent disabilit Non-pecuniary damages (Gene nd trauma as a consequence of of prospects of marriage). rtening of normal longevity). compensation will be awarded o t is only in serious cases of inju vidence corroborating the evide n will be granted under any of lating to loss of future earnings future medical expenses, loss pects of marriage) and loss

AIR dia) onal nes, ave ty. eral f the only ury, ence f the s on s of

19.

(i) A res

(ii) who loss ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub evid ear Tri

(iv) of l nat fac

¶20wit Illu ear evid inju

xxx

xxx We may now summarise the pr All injuries (or permanent disab ult in loss of earning capacity. The percentage of permanen ole body of a person, cannot b s of earning capacity. To put it d rning capacity is not the same ability (except in a few cases, w dence, concludes that percentag me as percentage of permanent d ) The doctor who treated an inju bsequently to assess the extent of dence only in regard the extent rning capacity is something tha ibunal with reference to the evide ) The same permanent disability loss of earning capacity in diffe ture of profession, occupation ctors. The assessment of loss of fu th reference to the following ustration 'A' : The injured, a w rning Rs. 3000/- per month at th dence, the permanent disability ury was 60% and the consequ

xxx

xxx rinciples discussed above : bilities arising from injuries), do nt disability with reference to e assumed to be the percentage differently, the percentage of loss e as the percentage of perman where the Tribunal on the basis ge of loss of earning capacity is disability). ured-claimant or who examined h of his permanent disability can g of permanent disability. The loss at will have to be assessed by ence in entirety. may result in different percenta ferent persons, depending upon or job, age, education and ot uture earnings is explained bel workman, was aged 30 years a he time of accident. As per Docto of the limb as a consequence of uential permanent disability to

not e of s of nent s of him give s of ages ther low or's

per how bec gra Illu is a lon Tri 75% Illu Eng two The inc ass

rson was quantified at 30%. wever assessed by the Tribunal cause the claimant is continue ade. Calculation of compensation a) Annual income before the b) Loss of future earning per (15% of the prior annual inc c) Multiplier applicable with d) Loss of future earnings : ( ustration 'B' : The injured was a 00/- per month. His hand is amp assessed at 60%. He was termi nger drive. His chances of gettin d even if he got any job, the sala ibunal therefore assessed his lo %. Calculation of compensation a) Annual income prior to th b) Loss of future earning per (75% of the prior annual inc c) Multiplier applicable with d) Loss of future earnings : ( ustration 'C' : The injured w gineering student. As a result of o months, his right hand was a e permanent disablement was as capacitated to pursue his chose sistance of a servant throughout

The loss of earning capacity l as 15% on the basis of eviden ed in employment, but in a low n will be as follows: e accident : Rs. 36,000/-. r annum come) : Rs. 5400/-. h reference to age : 17 (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/- a driver aged 30 years, earning putated and his permanent disabi inated from his job as he could ng any other employment was bl ary was likely to be a pittance. T oss of future earning capacity will be as follows : e accident : Rs. 36,000/- . r annum come) : Rs. 27000/-. h reference to age : 17 (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/- was 25 years and a final y of the accident, he was in coma amputated and vision was affect ssessed as 70%. As the injured w en career and as he required t his life, the loss of future earn

y is nce, wer Rs. ility d no leak The y as year for ted. was

cap wil a) M hav Eng b) L (70 c) M d) L [No hyp act

19.

Ho Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sections 166, 1 aspects:-

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

pacity was also assessed as 70% ll be as follows : Minimum annual income he wou ve got if had been employed as a gineer

Loss of future earning per annum 0% of the expected annual incom Multiplier applicable (25 years) Loss of future earnings : (42000 ote : The figures adopted in pothetical. The figures in Illust tuals taken from the decision in A n'ble Supreme Court in the case y Sethi &Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 63-A and 168 of the Motor Ve ) Deduction of personal an ultiplicand; ) Selection of multiplier depen ) Age of deceased on basis for ) Reasonable figures on con ate, loss of consortium and funer ) Future prospects for all cate es: with permanent job; self-emp e relevant portion of the judgmen " Therefore, we think it seems to us that reasonabl

%. The calculation of compensat uld an

: Rs. 60,000/-m me) : Rs. 42000/-

: 18 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/- n illustrations (A) and (B) tration (C) however are based Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)]. e of National Insurance Compa C 680] has clarified the law un ehicles Act, 1988, on the follow nd living expenses to determ nding on age of deceased; r applying multiplier; nventional heads, namely, loss ral expenses, with escalation; egories of persons and for differ ployed or fixed salary. nt is reproduced as under:- t seemly to fix reasonable sums le figures on conventional hea

tion are on any nder wing mine of rent s. It ads,

20.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age Ins effe Tra gro fac for

namely, loss of estate, loss o should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40 The principle of revisiting principle. But the revisit sho centric. We think that it wou we have quantified should b every three years and the en 10% in a span of three yea because that will bring in heads." n'ble Supreme Court in the ca Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has

¶7There are three aspects which the application of multiplier of The aforesaid increase of m e of the appellant as 23 years re urance Company Limited v. Pr 00 (SC). In para 46 of the said ectively affirmed the multiplier m e table in the case of Sarla V ansport Corporation and Anothe oup of 15-25 years, the multi ctoring in the extent of disability. The aforesaid position is not the respondent State Corpora

of consortium and funeral expen 0,000 and Rs.15,000 respectiv the said heads is an accepta uld not be fact-centric or quantu uld be condign that the amount t be enhanced on percentage basis nhancement should be at the rate ars. We are disposed to hold n consistency in respect of th ase of Erudhaya Priya Vs. St s held as under:- are required to be examined by f '17' instead of '18'; multiplier is sought on the basis elying on the judgment in Natio ranay Sethi and Others, 2017 A d judgment, the Constitution Ben method to be used as mentioned Verma (Smt) and Others v. De er, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the a iplier has to be '18' along w

t really disputed by learned coun ation and, thus, we come to

nses ely. able um-that s in e of d so ose tate us: s of onal ACJ nch d in elhi age with

con app

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel jud mu

nclusion that the multiplier to pellant has to be '18' and not '17 Loss of earning capacity of ability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesa mpensation on what is stated to gdish v. Mohan & Others, 20 anuja v. Atul Dande & Another low the principle set out in the Ja "8. In assessing the compens need to be borne in mind. A temporary disability occasio award of compensation. The among others, the following

(i) Pain, suffering and tra

(ii) Loss of income includ

(iii) The inability of the vi with its amenities;

(iv) Medical expenses incl required to undertake

(v) Loss of expectation of The aforesaid principle has dgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanu ltiplier method was logically so

o be applied in the case of 7'. of the appellant with perman aid, the appellant has claim o be the settled principle set ou 018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sand r, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extr agdish (supra) in para 8: sation payable the settled princip victim who suffers a permanent ned by an accident is entitled to award of compensation must co aspects: auma resulting from the accident ding future income; ictim to lead a normal life toget luding those that the victim may in future; and f life." [emphasis supplied] also been emphasized in an ear uja case (supra) opining that ound and legally well established

nent med t in deep ract ples t or over t; ther y be rlier

qua disa disa occ und

antify the loss of income as ability suffered in an accident. In the factual contours of th ability certificate, it shows th casions for various number of 11 to January 2013. The natur der: "Nature of injury:

(i) compound fracture sha

(ii) fracture both bones lef

(iii) compound fracture bo

(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th

(v) subtrochanteric fractu

(vi) fracture shaft femur

(vii) fracture both bones lef We have also peruse petition showing the curren though it is stated by learne Corporation that the same w Be that as it may, this is the the nature of injuries itself been opined in para 13 of S while applying the multipl advancement in life and c consideration.

a result of death or perman he present case, if we examine he admission/hospitalization on days over 1½ years from Aug re of injuries had been set out aft left humerus ft forearm th bones right forearm h metacarpals right hand ure right femur ft leg ed the photographs annexed to nt physical state of the appella ed counsel for the respondent St was not on record in the trial co e position even after treatment a f show their extent. Further, it Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) t lier method, future prospects career are also to be taken i

nent n 8 gust t as ant, tate urt. has that on

We are, thus, unequivo in the contention of the app with regard to future prospec of the appellant taking the p quantification of the same National Insurance Co. Ltd para 61(iii), considering th 50% of the actual salary in th

(c) The third and the last as 12% In respect of the afo down the interest rate durin view of the judicial pronoun case (supra). On this aspect dispute raised by the learne the claim was confined to applied by this Court. CONCLUSION

¶8The result of the afores principles, the calculation of set out in para 5 of the syno follows:

Heads Loss of earning power (Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100 Future prospects (50 per cent addition)

ocally of the view that there is m pellant and the aforesaid princip cts must also be applied in the c permanent disability as 31.1%. T on the basis of the judgment d. case (supra), more specifica he age of the appellant, would he present case. spect is the interest rate claimed resaid, the appellant has wate ng the course of hearing to 9% ncements including in the Jagdis t, once again, there was no seri ed counsel for the respondent o 9% in line with the interest ra said is that relying on the sett f compensation by the appellant, opsis, would have to be adopted Awarded Rs. 9,81,978/-Rs.4,90,989/-

erit ples case The t in ally d be d as ered % in sh's ious nce ates tled , as

Rs. per

21.

In v

29.07.2006 is s down by Hon'b held entitled to t Sr. No. Med Atte Diet Tran

¶5Pain

Tot

22.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and Supreme Court per annum from

Medical expenses including transport charges, nourishment, etc. Loss of matrimonial prospects Loss of comfort, loss of amenities mental agony Pain and suffering Total The appellant would, thus, 41,69,831/- as claimed along w r annum from the date of applica view of the above, the present et aside. Accordingly, as per th ble Supreme Court as mentioned the compensation amount as calc Heads dical Expenses Rs endant Charges Rs t Rs nsportation Rs n and Sufferings Rs tal Compensation Rs far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nandu State t Cases 107, the amount so calc m the date of filing of the claim pe

Rs.18,46,864/- Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.41,69,831/- be entitled to the compensation with simple interest at the rate of ation till the date of payment. appeal is allowed and award da he settled principles of law as l d above, the appellant - claiman culated below: Compensation Awarded s.25000/- s.10,000/- s.10,000/- s.5000/- s.20,000/- s.70,000/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 te Transport Corporation (2022 culated shall carry an interest @ etition, till the date of realization

n of f 9% ated laid nt is eme 2) 5 9%

23.

The compensation al from today. The compensation a claimant/appella

24.

Dis

25.

Pen

05.09.2024 A.Kaundal

Whethe

Whethe

e Insurance Company is directed long with interest with the Tribu e Tribunal is further directed to along with interest in the accou ant is directed to furnish the bank sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

d to deposit the enhanced amoun unal within a period of two mon o disburse the enhanced amount unt of the claimant/appellant. T k account details to the Tribunal tand disposed of.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

nt of nths t of The .