Gurbachan Kaur v. State of Haryana and Ors

IN T

Smt. Gurbachan State of Haryana

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

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

2.

Bri Gurbachan Kau on correct left h reached near th Haryana Roadw and negligently

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da n Kaur

VERSUS a & others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Mohit Giri, Advocate and r. Harmeet Singh, Advocate for th r. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl. r. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for r. R.N.Singal, Advocate for respo -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th ala (for short, 'the Tribunal') vi the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w pensation of Rs.2,70,000/- alongw N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are tha r was going on foot from Amba hand side of the road on kacha b he entrance gate of bus stand ways bus bearing registration No. by respondent No.3 came from

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-2363-2007 (O&M) ate of Decision : 11.11.2024

....Appellant ....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA the appellant. A.G. Haryana. ondent No.4 – Insurance Compan erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Cla ide award dated 30.01.2007 un whereby the claimant/appellant w with interest @ 7.5% per annum at on 06.12.2005 appellant S a Market, Ambala City to her ho berm. At about 2.30 pm when Ambala City, in the meantime .HR-39-A-8418 being driven ras behind and hit the claimant and

ny. for ims nder were m. Smt. ouse she e, a

left front wheel taken to Mann H leg above knee w the next day. S

22.12.2005. Th treatment and b treatment, transp in question was the entire house than Rs.3200/- p due to the injuri

07.12.2005 was Ambala City, in

3.

Up the factum of ac

4.

Fro issues:-

of the said bus run over her rig Hospital, Ambala City where op was conducted on the same day She remained admitted in the he claimant at the time of filing o by that time a sum of rupees o portation etc.. It is averred that 54 years of age and was enjoyin ehold work and was contributing per month. After the accident sh ies suffered by her in the accide s also got registered under Secti n this regard. on notice of the claim petition, ccident/compensation. om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether the acciden permanent disability to cla caused due to the rash and No.HR-39-A-8418? OPP

¶2If issue No.1 is proved and from whom the claimant

ght leg. After the accident, she w peration for amputation of her ri and she regained consciousness said hospital from 06.12.2005 of the claim petition was still un one lakh was spent by her on the claimant at the time of accid ng very good health. She used to g services to the family for not l he has become dependent on oth ent in question. FIR No.290, da ions 279/338 IPC at Police Stati , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow nt resulting in the injuries aimant Smt. Gurbachan Kaur w d negligent driving of bus bear d, to what amount of compensat t is entitled to? OPP

was ight s on 5 to nder her dent o do less hers ated ion, nied wing and was ring

5.

Aft record, the learn alongwith inter present appeal SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea suffered 65% p Tribunal is on th future prospects charges, transpo lower side. He, of compensation

¶3Whether the claim pe non-joinder of necessary part

¶4Whether the claim p present form? OPR-4

¶5Whether the person question was not holding a v the time of the alleged accide

¶6Whether the claim pet in collusion with the respond

¶7Releif. ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compens rest @ 7.5% per annum. Henc for enhancement of compen S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claimant-ap permanent disability and the he lower side. He further conten s and compensation awarded f ortation charges and for loss o therefore, prays that the present n be enhanced.

etition is bad for mis-joinder ties? OPR-4 petition is not maintainable in who was driving the vehicle valid and effective driving licenc ent? OPR-4 tition has been filed by the claim dents No. 1 to 3? OPR-4 he pleadings and the evidence sation to the tune of Rs.2,70,00 ce the claimant/appellant filed sation awarded by the Tribun S FOR THE PARTIES ppellant contends that the appell amount assessed by the learn nds that no amount was granted for pain and sufferings, attend f enjoyment of life is also on t appeal be allowed and the amo

and its e in e at mant on 00/- nal. lant ned for dant

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

A permanent disab home-maker's i Wadhwa and O the Hon'ble Su makers and the judgments deliv titled as Unied I

15.01.2024 and India Insuranc homemaker wer Hon'ble Justice Wadhwa's case

r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 30.01.20 n. Therefore, he prays for dismis have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicates bility because of the accident in ncome must be guided by the p Others Vs. State of Bihar and o upreme Court, recognized the s eir economic value within the h vered by co-ordinate Benches India Insurance Company Vs. S d FAO-2772-2015 titled as Ta ce Company Limited and Othe re assessed as Rs.9,000/- per mo e Ajay Tiwari, while referrin supra made the following obse "Learned counsel for while noticing that the was approximately `8 assessed the income o him once the notional had to be made for pe

ent-Insurance Company argues t 007 has rightly assessed the amo ssal of the present appeal. the parties and perused the wh s that the appellant suffered 6 n question. The determination o rinciples laid down in case of L others, (2001) 8 SCC 197, wher significant contributions of hom household, further in two separ of this Court in FAO-218-20 Sube Singh and Others decided arsem Singh and Others Vs. N ers, the income of the claiman onth. In Sube Singh's case (supr ng to the precedent set in L rvations:- the appellant has argued that e e income of a skilled worker in 20 8000/- the Tribunal has wron of the deceased as `9000/-. As p income had been taken a deduct ersonal expenses. This argumen

that ount hole 65% of a Lata rein me-rate 024, d on New nts-ra), Lata even ngly per tion

10.

In testimony of appellant/claima substantial contr considerations a and just determi income as Rs.6,

11.

Fur under the Head

flawed. In Lata Wadh and others reported a the accident had tak Supreme Court evalu wife at Rs.3000/-per m case took place after 2 to tag a house wife as do complete justice to manager. Keeping in v the accident in the cas accident and my co something more than be unreasonable to deceased in the prese whole I see no reason f n the instant case based on the PW-2 Gurbachan Kaur (cla ant's role as homemaker entail ribution that surpass those of a s and above referred to judgments ination, it is appropriate to asses 000/- per month. rther, the amount of compensatio ds pain and suffering, attendant

hwa and others v. State of Bih as 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 673 (wh ken place in 1981) the Hon uated the contribution of a ho month. The accident in the pres 23 years. In my considered opin s a 'skilled worker' alone does o her multifarious role as a ho view the lapse of 23 years betw se of Lata Wadhwa and the pres onclusion that a house wife a mere skilled worker it would estimate the contribution of ent case at a higher figure. On for reducing the quantum." evidence on record, including aimant), it is evident that ls multifaceted responsibilities skilled worker. In the light of th and further to ensure an inequita ss the appellant/claimant's notio on awarded by the learned Tribu charges, and special diet is on

har here 'ble ouse sent nion not ome ween sent is not and hese able onal

lower side and award requires i SETTLED LAW

12.

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

no amount has been awarded interference by this Court. 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

for future prospects, therefore, 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

13.

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

14.

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 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

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

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

ther y be rlier d to nent n 8 gust

(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. 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

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 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

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

15.

In above referred

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) 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 view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present app

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/- 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

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

30.01.2007 is m enhanced amoun Sr. No.

¶1Inco

¶2Futu

¶3Ann

¶4Los disa

¶5Mul

¶6Med Atte Pain Nut Tran Los Tota

¶13Com

Enh

16.

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

17.

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 10% Rs nual Income Rs s on account of 65% 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.6,000/- s.600/- (6,000 x 10%) s.6600/- (6000+600) s.4290/- (6600 x 65%) s.5,66,280/- (4290 x 11 x 12) s.31,000/- s.1,00,000/- s.1,00,000/- s.50,000/- s.25,000/- s.1,00,000/- s.9,41,280/- s.2,70,000/- s.6,71,280/- 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

18.

Dis

19.

Pen

November 11, 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 her b tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king