Ram Chander v. Amrik Singh and Ors

IN T

Ram Chander Amrik Singh an

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The enhancement of Tribunal, Karna Section 166 of t awarded a comp FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri Channder appel Karnal, meanwh driven by respo without blowin appellant. Due multiple injuries toe of right foot

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da

VERSUS nd Ors.

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. H.N.Sahu, Advocate for the ap r. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Advoc -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th al (for short, 'the Tribunal') vi the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w pensation of Rs.83,400/- along w N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that on 0 llant alighted from a three whee hile, one motor-cycle bearing re ondent No.1 Amrik Singh in ng any horn, came from the b e to this accident, appellant Ra s on various parts of his body in .

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-1021-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision : 08.11.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA ppellant. cate for respondent –Insurance C erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Cla ide award dated 18.10.2005 un whereby, the claimant/appellant w with interest @ 6% per annum.

01.06.2003 at about 11.20 am R eler in front of the gate of N.D. egistration No.PB-11U-6134 be a rash and negligent manner back side and struck against am Chander received grievous cluding fracture in the right leg

Co. for ims nder was Ram .R.I eing and and

The in the accident

15.07.2003. H treatment, medi been averred th crippled and he appellant had to paying Rs.1500/

3.

Up the factum of ac

4.

Fro issues:-

e appellant alleged that the toe o and he remained admitted in He further alleged that a sum cines and other daily needs and hat after the accident, the life of e is unable to walk and sit. o engage a servant to look afte /- per month to him. on notice of the claim petition, ccident/compensation. om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether the acciden negligent driving of motor 11U-6134 by Amrik Sigh re the claimants Ram Chander a

¶2Whether the claimant are entitled to receive any co injuries sustained by them i amount and from whom? OP

¶3Whether the insured conditions of the insurance effect? OPR 3

¶4Relief.

of his right foot was cut/amputa n the hospital from 01.06.2003 of Rs.50,000/- was spent on d he is still under treatment. It f the appellant has been ruined It has also been averred that er his dairy work and he has b , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow nt was caused due to rash cycle bearing registration No.P espondent No.1 causing injuries and Major Singh, as alleged? OP ts Ram Chander and Majer Sin ompensation amount on account in the accident. If so to how mu PP d has violated any terms policy, as alleged. If so to w

ated 3 to his has and een nied wing and PB-s to PP ngh t of uch and

5.

Aft record, the lear along with inte present appeal f SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea accident the app the amount asse has been assess prospects, etc. M is on lower side amount of comp

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

A p awarded by the Dr. Girdhar the has been awarde granted for spec award requires i

ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compen erest @ 6% per annum. Henc for enhancement of compensation S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claimant-pellant suffered 10% permanent essed by the learned Tribunal is sed under the Heads pain and s Moreover, amount granted for sp e. He, therefore, prays that the pensation be enhanced. r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 18.10.20 n. Therefore, he prays for dismis have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicates learned Tribunal is on the lower disability of the claimant is ass ed under the Heads pain and suff cial diet and transportation char interference by this Court.

he pleadings and the evidence nsation to the tune of Rs.83,40 ce the claimant/appellant filed n awarded by the Tribunal. S FOR THE PARTIES appellant contends that due to t disability. He further contends t s on the lower side and no amo suffering, attendant charges, fut pecial diet and transporation char present appeal be allowed and ent-Insurance Company argues t 005 has rightly assessed the amo ssal of the present appeal. the parties and perused the wh that the amount of compensat r side and as per statement of PW sessed as 10%. Further no amo ffering, future prospects and amo rges is on lower side, therefore,

on 00/- this that ount ture rges that ount hole tion W-3 ount

SETTLED LAW

10.

Ho compensation w Kumar Vs. Aja held as under:- Gen

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

W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court has set with respect to the disability. T ay Kumar and Another (2011) 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 ve earned. (See C.K. Subramoni

ttled the law regarding grant The Apex Court in the case of ) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, mpensation in injury cases Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for sho must be just, which means t ent possible, fully and adequa n prior to the accident. The objec od the loss suffered as a resul 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 ia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, A

t of Raj has ort) that tely ct of t of and tion e of y to h he be njoy ould

Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

(vi) In r und whe of t hea acc

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,

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

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

am exp

19.

(i) A res

(ii) who loss ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub evid ear Tri

(iv) of l nat fac

¶20wit

enities (and/or loss of prosp pectation of life. 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

pects of marriage) and loss 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

of not e of s of nent s of him give s of ages ther

Illu ear evid inju per how bec gra Illu is a lon and Tri 75%

ustration 'A' : The injured, a w rning Rs. 3000/- per month at th dence, the permanent disability ury was 60% and the consequ 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 : (

workman, was aged 30 years a he time of accident. As per Docto of the limb as a consequence of uential permanent disability to 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 loss 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/-

and or's f the y is nce, wer Rs. ility d no leak The

Illu Eng two The inc ass cap wil a) M hav Eng b) L (70 c) M d) L [No hyp act

11.

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

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

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 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

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 %. 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;

year for ted. was ning tion are on any nder wing

(D) esta

(E) age The

12.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age Ins

) 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 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 ye 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

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 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

of rent s. It ads, nses ely. able um-that s in e of d so hose tate us: s of onal

effe Tra gro fac for con app

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel

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 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

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 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;

nch d in elhi age with nsel nent med t in deep ract ples t or over t;

jud mu qua disa disa occ und

(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 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

ctim 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 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

ther y be rlier d to nent n 8 gust

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. 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

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 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

ant, tate urt. and has that on into erit ples case The t in ally d be d as ered % in sh's

Rs. per CONCLUSION

13.

In above referred

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) Medical expenses including transport charges, nourishment, etc. Loss of matrimonial prospects Loss of comfort, loss of amenities and mental agony Pain and suffering Total The appellant would, thus, 41,69,831/- as claimed along w r annum from the date of applica N view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present app

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/- 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. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peal is allowed. The award da

nce ates tled t, as d as n of f 9%

18.10.2005 is m enhanced amoun Sr. No.

¶1Inco

¶2Futu

¶3Ann

¶4Los disa

¶5Mul

¶6Med Atte Pain Nut Tran Los Tota

¶13Com

Enh

14.

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

15.

The compensation al from the date of directed to disbu

modified accordingly. The app nt of compensation as per the cal Heads ome Rs ure Prospects 40% Rs nual Income Rs s on account of 10% ability Rs ltiplier 11 Rs dical Expenses Rs endant Charges Rs n and sufferings Rs trition & Special Diet Rs nsport Charges Rs s of amenities Rs al Compensation Rs mpensation awarded by Tribunal Rs hanced 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 claim petiti e Insurance Company is directed long with interest with the Tribu f receipt of certified copy of this urse the amount of compensation

pellant-claimant is entitled to lculations made here-under:- Compensation Awarded s.2200/- s.880/- (2200x 40%) s.3080/- (2200+880) s.308/- (3080 x 10%) s.48,048/- (308 x 15 x 12) s.10,000/- s.20,000/- s.30,000/- s.20,000/- s.15,000/- s.50,000/- s.1,93,048/- s.83,000/- s.1,09,648/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 te Transport Corporation (2022 culated shall carry an interest @ on till the date of realization. d to deposit the enhanced amoun unal within a period of two mon s judgment. The Tribunal is furt n along with interest in the acco

eme 2) 5 @9% nt of nths ther

of claimant/app account details t

16.

Dis

17.

Pen

November 08, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

pellant. The claimant/appellant to the Tribunal. sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st 2024

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

t is directed to furnish his ba tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king