Tara Chand v. Maha Singh and Ors

IN T

Tara Chand Maha Singh and

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The against the awar Tribunal, Karna Vehicles Act, along with inter

2.

As quantum of com the facts of the c

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da

VERSUS d Others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for r. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the r. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana. r. Suman Jain, Advocate for resp r. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for r. R.N.Singal, Advocate for respo -.-

HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been pr rd dated 29.01.2007 passed by t al (for short, 'the Tribunal') un 1988, whereby, the claimant/a est @ 7.5% per annum on accou sole issue for determination in mpensation awarded by the learn case is not reproduced and is skip

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-3024-2007 (O&M) ate of Decision : 16.12.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA r appellants. ondent– National Insurance Co. ondent – Oriental Insurance Co. referred by the claimant/appell the learned Motor Accident Clai nder Section 166/140 of the Mo appellant was granted Rs.39,00 unt of injuries received by him. n the present appeal is confined ned Tribunal, a detailed narration pped herein for the sake of brevi

lant ims otor 00/- d to n of

SUBMISSIONS

3.

Lea assessed by the amount was gr Moreover, the transportation c appeal be allow the latest law.

4.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

5.

I h record of this ca

6.

A assessed the m record reveals disabled. How treatment from

09.10.2002 and this Court deem conventional he

7.

Fur toward attenda Furthermore, th

S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claiman learned Tribunal is on the lowe ranted towards attendant charg amount granted towards pain charges is on the lower side. Th wed and the awarded amount of r contra, learned for the respond bunal vide award dated 29.01.20 n. Therefore, he prays for dismis have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of record shows that medical expenses borne by the that the appellant had not be wever, the evidence led on rec various hospitals and remained thereafter received treatment as ms it appropriate to grant compe ads. rther perusal of the record rev ant charges, and loss of ame he amount granted towards pai

S FOR THE PARTIES nt-appellant contends that amo er side. He further contends that ges and loss of amenities of l and sufferings, special diet herefore, he prays that the pres f compensation be enhanced as dent-Insurance Company argue t 007 has rightly assessed the amo ssal of the present appeal. the parties and perused the wh the learned Tribunal has righ appellant. Further perusal of ecome permanently or tempor cord shows that he had receiv d hospitalized from 06.10.2002 s OPD patient. In view of the sam ensation to the appellant under veals that no amount was gran enities of life by the Tribun in and suffering, special diet

ount t no life. and sent per that ount hole htly rary ved 2 to me, nted nal.

transportation c indulgence of th SETTLED LAW

8.

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

charges is also on the lower si his 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

ide. Therefore, the award requi 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

ires 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 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/-

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

9.

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

(A) mu

(B)

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

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;

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

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

10.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age

) 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 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

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 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

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

Ins effe Tra gro fac for con app

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel

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 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

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 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

ACJ 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

(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 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

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 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

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

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.

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

CONCLUSION

11.

In above referred

29.01.2007 is enhanced compe Sr. No.

¶1Tran

¶2Pain

¶3Nut

¶4Med

¶5Atte

¶6Los

Tot

Com

Enh

12.

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

13.

In v is directed to d within a period The Tribunal is

N view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present app modified accordingly. The ensation as per the calculations m Heads nsportation Charges Rs n and sufferings Rs trition & Special Diet Rs dical Expenses Rs endant Charges Rs s of amenities of life Rs tal Compensation Rs mpensation awarded by Tribunal Rs hanced Compensation Rs (1 far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nadu State t Cases 107, the amount so calc m the date of filing of claim petiti view of the above, respondent N deposit the enhanced amount o of two months from the date o further directed to disburse the a

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peal is allowed. The award da appellant-claimant is entitled made here-under:- Compensation Awarded s.20,000/- s.50,000/- s.10,000/- s.18,931/- s.20,000/- s.50,000/- s.1,68,931/- s.39,000/- s.1,29,931/- ,68,931 - 39,000) erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 e Transport Corporation (2022 culated shall carry an interest @ ion till the date of realization. No.3-National Insurance Compa of compensation with the Tribu of receipt of copy of this judgme amount of compensation along w

ated to eme 2) 5 9% any unal ent.

interest in the a furnish his bank

14.

In

18.07.2024 by t the current sch Advocate within judgment.

15.

Dis

16.

Pen

December 16, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

account of claimant/appellant. Th k account details to Tribunal. view of the order passed in this Court, the insurance compan heduled fee to Mr. Suman Jain n a period of twenty days from sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

he claimant/appellant is directed n FAO No.1682 of 2007 da nies are hereby directed to disbu n, Advocate and Mr. R.N.Sing the date of receipt of copy of t tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE king

d to ated urse gal,