Harbans Kaur v. Darshan Lal and Ors

IN

Harbans Kaur

Darshan Lal and

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Mr for

Mr Ms for SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The

14.12.2005 pass Act, 1989 by th Tribunal') vide w FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri purchase of sug Gohana Road, w the road on left, behind a bus. H reckless and car he struck agains

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA

Re Da

Versus d others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate the appellant. r.M.S. Bhatti, Advocate respondent No.1, 2 and 2(a). r. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate and s. Simran Advocate and Mr. Harp respondent No.4-Ins. Co. -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been pref sed in the claim petition under he learned Motor Accident Clai which the claim petition filed by N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that gar from the shop of one Ram was on way back to her juice sh , before crossing it, respondent N He was driving a scooter with r reless manner, driving on the wr st the petitioner and fell on the r

NJAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-1929-2006 (O&M) served on: 05.09.2024 ate of Decision :01.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA preet Singh, Advocate ferred against the judgment da Section 166 of the Motor Vehic ims Tribunal, Jind (for short, y the claimant was dismissed. on 19.1.1999 the petitioner, a Niwas Kariyana Store situated hop and was present by the side No.1 - Darshan Lal, appeared fr registration No. HR-31A-6472 i ong side of the road and resultan road and the scooter then struck

ated cles 'the fter d on e of rom in a ntly

right leg, causin the accident, n respondent No.1 bus stand and w respondent No.1 therefore, did n Respondent No expenses of trea to pay the same.

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

ng severe crush injuries. She also nearby shop-keepers assembled 1 alongwith others to Jain Dharm was treated by Dr. Ajay Goel t 1 wanted to help him and to save not intentionally give informatio .1 left the hospital with the ass atment of the petitioner besides o . on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties, "1. Whether the petitioner accident which took place on area of P.S. City Jind due to part of respondent no.1 D NO.HR-31-A/6472 as alleged

¶2Whether the petitioner is OPR.

¶3Whether the petition is tim

¶4Whether respondent no.1 d if so, to what effect? OPR

¶5Whether the petitioner compensation and if so how m

o suffered head injuries. Soon a d there and she was shifted marth Hospital situated opposite there. Dr. Goel being a relative e him from legal complications a on to the police about the accide surance that he will bear the en other charges but later on he refu , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow r suffered injuries in a vehicu n 19.1.1999 at Gohana Road in o rash and negligent driving on Darshan Lal while driving scoo d? OPP estopped from filing the petitio me barred? OPR. did not hold a valid driving licen r is entitled to an award much and from whom? OPP.

after by e of and, ent. ntire used nied wing ular oter on? nce,

5.

Aft record, the lear appellant filed th SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea learned Presidin and is against t erred grossly appellant/claima No.HR-31A-647

7.

Per learned Presidin appellant-claima injuries with th present appeal is

8.

I h record of this ca

¶6Relief." 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 appellant ng Officer, MACT is erroneous, the evidence. He further conte in dismissing the claim ant has failed to prove the accide 72 driven by respondent No.1 in r contra, learned for the respond ng Officer, MACT, Jind has ant. Since the appellant-claima e alleged accident in any mann s liable to be dismissed. have heard learned counsel for ase. Relevant portion of the judgm "Issue No.1:-

¶10Petitioner Harbans Kaur 4 and deposed that on 19.1.1 was coming back to her shop shop of one Ram Niwas wh No.HR-31A/6472 came from by respondent no.1 Darshan

the parties and perusing the wh laim petition. Hence, the claim ompensation. HE PARTIES t submits that the judgment of based on conjectures and surmi ends that the learned MACT, J petition and holding that ent with scooter bearing registrat n a rash and negligent manner. dents No.1 and 2 contends that rightly rejected the claim of ant failed to connect the alleg ner, therefore, he contends that the parties and perused the wh ment is reproduced hereunder:- r stepped in the witness box as P 1999 at about 10.30 AM/11 AM op after purchase of sugar from hen a scooter bearing registrat m the side of bus stand being dri n Lal in rash and negligent man

hole mant ises Jind tion ged hole PW-she tion iven

and struck against her right The wheel assembled at the Dharmarth Hospital where She remained under the trea three months and thereaf Hospital at Rohtak. She complaint against present accident. Copy of the compl she has not got any com suffered by her in this Orthopaedic Surgeon, Jain C that Harbans Kaur was ad

19.1.1999 with diagnosis o Plaster was applied and she advice for regular follow

28.1.1999 for operation in t displaced. Operation was fixation of fracture with na discharged on 11.2.1999 wi the OPD. Admission and Dis OPD card dated 24.9.2001 deposed that the patient h accident. According to him cases as a matter of policy He added that the fracture

t leg and resultantly she fell do spot. Darshan Lal took her to J she was treated by Dr.Ajay Go atment of Dr.Goel continuously fter got treatment from Chad disclosed that she instituted respondent No.1 regarding laint Ex.P.32. She made clear t mpensation regarding the injur accident. PW-1 Dr.Ajay Go Charitable Hospital, Jind, depo dmitted in the emergency ward of fracture both bones right l e was discharged on 21.1.1999 w up. She was gain admitted the right leg because fracture h conducted on 30.1.1999 wher ail was dane and the patient w ith advice for regular follow up scharge Cards are Exs.P.1 and P 1 is Ex.P.3. The witness furt had alleged history of road s m, they do not admit medico-le and take consent from the patie could be the result of impact b

wn. Jain oel. for dha d a this that ries oel, osed on leg. with on had reby was p in P.2. ther side egal ent.

scooter or some other moving treated the petitioner at R Dr.Rup Singh from PGIMS order in order to prove disab

¶11On the other hand, Ja the witness box as RW-1 a scooter no.HR-31A/6472 wh Harish Kumar respondent n deposed that on that date h driving that scooter and whe Gohana Road, the petitioner people were standing there n slipped from the heap of further deposed that on alongwith Darshan Lal (w petitioner to Jain Dharmarth when the husband of the pe well as Darshan Lal came b was caused by him while d had struck against the petit has been possessing a dri Ex.R.1. Copy of Registrati mark-B. Copy of the insuran effect is the testimony of resp as RW-2. He asserted that D

g vehicle. Dr.N.S.Chadha, who h Rohtak, was examined as PW Rohtak was examined as PW-3 bility certificate. agbir respondent no.2-A stepped and deposed that he is owner hich was purchased by him fr no.2 prior to 19.1.1999. He furt he was on way to bus stand wh en he reached near Bal Bhawan, r was found lying on the road. Ma near her and they told that she h "bajri" lying on the road. Jag the request of those people who was pillion rider) took h Hospital. He further deposed t titioner reached the hospital he ack. According to him, no accid driving the scooter nor the scoo tioner. He further testified that ving licence and copy thereof ion Certificate of the vehicle nce policy is Ex.R.2. To the sim pondent Darshan Lal who appea Dr.Ajay Goel is not related to h

had W-2. 3 in d in r of rom ther hile , on Many had gbir he that e as dent oter t he f is e is ilar ared

RW-3 Satbir Singh, Regis Registering-cum-licensing Au relevant record and depose was originally registered (respondent no.2) and later o Jagbir (respondent no.2-A). regard which were dated 1 transfer was made on 20.1.1 The witness further disclose bottom of the application f Kumar is 14.1.1999. He fu endorsement on the applic application had been ma Superintendent Registration

14.1.1999 itself. True copi NO.29) and Form No.30 and and R.6. The witness furthe question had been transferr (Jagbir) on 20.1.1999.

¶12Learned counsel for th overwhelming evidence on r scooter no.HR-31A/6472 in that it was respondent no accident while driving that s that the petitioner was imm

stration Clerk in the office uthority (S.D.M.), Jind, brought ed that scooter No.HR-31-A/64 in the name of Harish Kum on it was transferred in the name . Affidavits were furnished in

14.1.1999 and the application 999 with the Registering Author ed that the date mentioned at for transfer by applicant Har further disclosed that there is ation from which shows that arked by the A.S.R. (Assist n) to the Registration Clerk es of the application form (fo d the affidavits are Exs.R.3, R.4, er made clear that the vehicle red in the name of the transfe he petitioner contended that ther record to prove the involvemen the accident and to prove the f .1 Darshan Lal who caused scooter. Learned counsel submit mediately taken to PW-1 Dr.A

of mar e of this for rity. rish an tant on orm R.5 e in eree re is t of fact tted

Goel admittedly by Darshan Darshan Lal did not inform counsel pointed out that in Goel deposed that Darshan the time of second admission bear the entire expenditure o denied that he is related to r him to escape from legal liab intentionally inform the po learned counsel that Jagb concern with the scooter in because Darshan Lal did no scooter was shown to have the date of accident. The co Jagbir (RW-1) who deposed affidavit had been purchase counsel then referred to the Registration Clerk, who tes been purchased on 16.10.19 these inconsistent statements between respondent no.1 an been pointed out that a com petitioner-injured regarding no.1-Darshan Lal before a been summoned in that co

Lal but the Doctor being related the police about the accident. T n the cross-examination, Dr.A Lal (respondent no.1) had come n of the patient and had agreed of the petitioner. Dr.Goel, howev respondent no.1 and wanted to h bility and complications and did olice. It is further contention bir (respondent no.2-A) had question on the relevant date a ot hold a valid driving licence, been purchased by Jagbir prior ounsel referred to the statemen that stamp paper for preparing ed 10 days prior to 19.1.1999. T e statement of RW-3 Satbir Sin stified that the stamp papers h

¶998According to learned coun s go to show that there is collus nd respondent no.2-A. It has a mplaint had been instituted by g this accident against respond criminal court and he has alrea omplaint (Ex.P.32 is the copy

d to The Ajay e at d to ver, help not of and r to t of The ngh, had nsel, sion also dent ady

complaint, Exs.P-33, P.34 a recorded before the crimina P.39 are the copies of or Exs.P.39 is the copy of ord was ordered to be summoned that lodging of FIR is no claiming compensation and vehicle has not been charged to hold that he was not at fa learned counsel relied upon through its Regional Manage Shri Swaran Singh and anot 159 and Tarwinder Singh V Latest Judicial Reports 780 Mohan Lal and others 199 which it was observed that F cannot be a substitute for version of the occurrence. Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1994 Accidents Claims Jou counsel for the petitioner, is name of the driver of the off claim petition omission is maintainable even if name of

and P.36 are copies of stateme al court, Exs. P-35, P.37, P.38 a rders passed by criminal Co der whereby accused Darshan d). Contention of learned counse ot an essential pre-requisite d even if driver of the offend d in a criminal case it is no grou fault. In support of the contentio n United India Insurance Co. L er, Chandigarh and another Ver ther 1989 (1) Punjab Law Repor Vs. Ishwar Chand Mittal 2002

¶0He also cited Virat Sama 4 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 82 FIR is often lodged in a haste a r the evidence giving exhaus Another authority cited as Ha . Vs. Mukesh Sharma and Oth urnal 45, relied upon by learn to the effect that even where wro ffending vehicle is mentioned in s not fatal and the petition f the driver had not been given.

ents and urt. Lal el is for ding und ons, Ltd. rsus rter

(1) Vs. 2 in and tive rgo hers ned ong

¶13On the other hand, le contended that the alleged a 31-A-6472 is highly doubtful there is no reason to disbel Authority which reveals tha purchased by respondent n accident. The evidence of (RW-3) shows that affidavits been prepared on 14.1.1999 on the application form th A.S.R. to the Registration C vehicle was transferred in transferee on 20.1.1999. appearing in the witness b purchased the scooter from As such, there is no reason t sufficient to prove that Jagbi in question prior to the date

¶14No doubt the petit

19.1.1999 and was taken to same date and was treated made clear in cross-exa discharged on 21.1.1999 and and it was only on 28.1.199 road side accident. This

earned counsel for the responde accident involving scooter No.H l. It has been further contended t lieve the record of the Register t the scooter in question had b o.2-A Jagbir prior to the date Satbir Singh, Registration Cle s regarding sale of the scooter h 9 and according to the endorsem he same had been marked by Clerk on 14.1.1999 itself and the record in the name of Besides that said Jagbir wh box as RW-1 testified that he h Harish Kumar prior to 19.1.19 to disbelieve this evidence which ir had become owner of the scoo of accident. tioner had suffered injuries o Jain Dharmarth Hospital on there by PW-1 Dr.Ajay Gael. mination that the patient w d was again admitted on 28.1.19 9 that she told about the history means that at the time of f

ents HR-that ring een e of erk, had ment hile had

¶999h is oter on He was y of

admission neither the petit Doctor about the alleged ac police and it was only afte Doctor was told about the a petitioner Harbans Kaur (P get any case registered with nor she moved any applicati She further admitted that sh only after the institution of present claim petition was i accident had allegedly take claim petition was instituted accident and the complain instituted even thereafter. prescribed for making a cla after the amendment in the y the present case render the doubtful. The fact that no re any other Authority regardin than three years and comp criminal court only after in very material circumstance complaint has been institu evidence.

tioner nor her husband told ccident nor report was made to er 9 days (on 28.1.1999) that accident. In the cross-examinati PW-4) made clear that she did h the police regarding the accid ion to any Authority in this rega he instituted a criminal compla of the present claim petition. T instituted on 7.6.2002 whereas en place on 19.1.1999. Thus, d more than three years after nt before the criminal court w Though there is no limitat aim under the Motor Vehicles year 1994, yet the circumstances story set up in the claim petit eport was made to the police or ng the accident for a period of m plaint has been instituted in nstitution of the claim petition es. It appears that the crimi uted subsequently just to cre

ion, not dent ard. aint The was tion Act s of tion r to more are inal

Wh compensation to to receive the sa ANALYSIS OF

10.

A p an accident invo rash and neglige leg of the appel blunt injury on Jind, by respon expenses of the same. Conseque of the Motor Ve

11.

Dr. diagnosed with for treatment. hospital had ag

28.01.1999 is th accident". Exhi complaint case

¶15In view of the above d has failed to prove that she s on 19.1.1999 involving sco respondent no.1 Darshan La decided against her. hile deciding issue No.2, o the tune of Rs.1,65,000/- but h ame since issue No.1 is decided a F RECORD. perusal of the record shows that olving a scooter bearing registra ent manner by respondent No 1. llant and the appellant suffered the head. The appellant was ad ndent No.1. Initially responden e treatment of the appellant bu ently, the appellant-claimant filed ehicles Act, 1988. . Ajay Goel examined as PW-1 fracture of both bones of right l He further stated that the perso greed to bear the expenses of he hospital admission card, whic ibit P-36 is the statement of C under section 279/337/338/506

discussion, I hold that the petitio suffered injuries in a road accid ooter No.HR-31A/6472 driven al and the issue accordingly sta learned Tribunal assessed held that the claimant is not entit against the claimant. t the appellant sustained injuries ation No.HR-31A-6472 driven i The said scooter ran over the ri crush injuries on her right leg dmitted in Jain Dharmarth Hospi nt No.1 was ready to bear all ut afterwards, he refused to do d a claim petition under section 1, deposed that Harbans Kaur w eg and was admitted to his hosp on who brought the injured to her treatment. Exhibit P-2 da ch records the history as a "roads CW-3 Dr. Ajay Goel recorded IPC, registered against respond

oner dent by nds tled s in in a ight and ital, was pital ated side d in

No. 1, in conne admitted that respondent No. claimant.

12.

Sat the office of Li was connivance vehicle in ques Judicial Magistr No.1 was summ

13.

A p admitted that he

14.

A Tribunal has no the claim of the

15.

A p working at Juic However, unde assessed as Rs prescribed for un SETTLED LAW

16.

Ho compensation w RajKumar Vs. has held as unde

ection with the accident in quest the injured/patient/appellant w 1 accompanied by Mr Jagtar S tbir Singh was examined as RW icensing and Registration Autho e between the respondent No. stion. Exhibit P-39, is the sum rate, IInd Class, Jind in compl moned to face trial for the said acc perusal of the written statemen e got the appellant admitted in th perusal of the above mentione t rightly examined the evidence appellant-claimant. perusal of the record shows that e Corner and her income was a r the prevailing facts of the p s.2000/-per month in accord nskilled worker in the State of H W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court has set with respect to the disability. Ajay Kumar and Another (20 er:-

tion. In his statement the said C was brought to the hospital Singh i.e. husband of the appella W-3, who is the registration Clerk ority, Jind, which proves that th 1 and 2 regarding transfer of mmoning order issued by the laint case, whereby the respond cident. nt shows that respondent No.1 h e hospital. ed record shows that the learn on record and erroneously rejec claimant/appellant was stated to asserted to be Rs.5000/- per mon present case, her income is to dance with the minimum wa Haryana. ttled the law regarding grant The Apex Court in the case 011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 3

CW by ant-k of here Ld. dent had ned cted o be nth. be ages t of e of 343,

Gen

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

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

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 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

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 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.

ort) that tely ct of t of and tion e of y to h he be njoy ould AIR dia) onal nes,

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

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

19.

(i) A res

(ii) who loss

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. 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

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 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

ave ty. eral f the only ury, ence f the s on s of of not e of

ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub evid ear Tri

(iv) of l nat fac

¶20wit Illu ear evid inju per how bec gra

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 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

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 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/-.

nent s of him give s of ages ther low and or's f the y is nce,

Illu is a lon and Tri 75% Illu Eng two The inc ass cap wil a) M hav Eng b) L (70

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 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

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 %. The calculation of compensat uld an

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

Rs. ility d no leak The y as year for ted. was ning

c) M d) L [No hyp act

17.

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

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

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 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

: 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 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

are on any nder wing mine of rent s. It ads, nses ely. able um-

18.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age Ins effe Tra gro fac for con app

(b) disa

com

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 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

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 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

s in e of d so ose tate us: s of onal ACJ nch d in elhi age with nsel nent med

Jag Kha bel jud mu qua disa disa occ

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 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

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 a result of death or perman he present case, if we examine he admission/hospitalization on days over 1½ years from Aug

deep ract ples t or over t; ther y be rlier d to nent n 8

und

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. 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

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 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

t as ant, tate urt. and has that on into erit ples case The

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) Medical expenses including transport charges, nourishment, etc. Loss of matrimonial prospects Loss of comfort, loss of amenities and mental agony

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/-Rs.18,46,864/-Rs.5,00,000/-Rs.1,50,000/-

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

Rs. per

19.

In v

14.12.2005 is s down by Hon'b held entitled to t Sr. No. Inco Futu Ann Mul

¶5Med Atte Tran Pain Spe Los Tot

20.

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

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 ome Rs ure Prospects 25% Rs nual Income Rs ltiplier (17) Rs dical Rs endant Charges Rs nsportation Rs n and Sufferings Rs cial diet Rs s of amenities 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.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.2000/- s.500/- (25% of 2000) s.30000/- (2000+500 x 12) s.5,10,000/- (30000 x 17) s.70000/- s.25000/- s.25000/- s.50,000/- s.15,000/- s.70,000/- s.7,65,000/- 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%

21.

As issue No.4 i.e. w to what effect? licence and the Company.

22.

The enhanced amou months from th liberty is grante from responden Tribunal is dire account. The ap the Tribunal.

23.

Dis

24.

Pen

October 01, 202 A.Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r

per the award passed by the lear whether respondent No.1 did not OPR, it was held that the dri issue stands decided in favour e Insurance Company-responde unt along with interest with th e date of receipt of copy of this ed to respondent No.4 i.e. Insura nts No.1 and 2a i.e. driver and o ected to disburse the same to t ppellant-claimant is directed to f sposed off accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No

rned Tribunal dated 14.12.2015, t hold a valid driving licence, if iver does not hold a valid driv r of respondent No.3 i.e. Insura ent No.4 is directed to deposit he Tribunal within a period of s judgment in the first instance ance Company to recover the sa wner of the offending vehicle. T the appellant-claimant in her b furnish her bank account details tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng

f so, ving ance f 03 and ame The ank