Jagjeet Singh v. Parma Nand and Ors

IN T

Jagjeet Singh Parma Nand and

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

Thi appearance on b

2.

Pre 2007, this Cour the event, any o the counsel emp to assist in the m to disburse the assisting in the m

3.

On notice on behalf

4.

Le paper-book alon Insurance Comp

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da

VERSUS d Ors.

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Tushar Gera, Advocate for the r. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

is is an old matter pertaining to t behalf of the Insurance Company eviously vide order dated 18.07 rt had already issued directions t f their empanelled counsel fails panelled with the Insurance Com matters. Further, the concerned I current scheduled fees to the c matters. n the asking of the Court, Mr. V f of the respondent-Insurance Co earned counsel for the appellan ngwith relevant record to the le pany.

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-2114-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision : 07.11.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA appellant. the respondent – Insurance Co. the year 2006 but no one has pu y.

7.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 to the Insurance Companies tha to appear, this Court would requ mpany, who is present in the Co Insurance Companies were direc counsel engaged by this Court Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate acce ompany. nts has handed over copy of earned counsel for the responden

ut in 2 of at in uest ourt cted for epts nt -

5.

In 2007, the Insura Mr. Vinod Chau case.

1.

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

2.

Bri travelling from scooter bearing appellant at norm municipal limi (hereinafter refe being driven by the scooter of th fractured and su damaged. Fathe to Military Hos was coming fr treatment, his sk

view of the order dated 18.07 ance Company is directed to dis udhri, Advocate, the counsel en e present appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th la (for short, 'the Tribunal') vi the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w pensation of Rs.10,000/- along w N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that Zirakpur to Rajpura alongwith registration No.PB-11-S-2895 mal speed with care and caution its of Banur, a truck bearin ferred to as the offending truck y respondent No.1, at a high spe he appellant, as a result of the sa uffered extensive wound on the r er of the appellant received mino spital, Chandimandir, by his fath rom behind. Since that day, t kin grafting surgery has been con

.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 sburse the current scheduled fees ngaged by this Court in the pres erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Cla ide award dated 10.01.2006 un whereby, the claimant/appellant w with interest @ 6% per annum. on 08.04.2003, the appellant w h his father Gurbax Singh on and the same being driven by n and when they reached within ng registration No.PB-11-N-44 k), came from behind, which w eed, rashly and negligently, and ame, the appellant's right ankle w right leg and the scooter was tota or injuries. The appellant was tak her by hiring a Maruti Van, wh he appellant is under continu nducted but the same is liable to

2 of s to sent for ims nder was was his was d hit was ally ken hich uous

conducted again body when the appellant has be he has also bec expenses on hi physical disabil also suffered m accident.

3.

Up the factum of ac

4.

Fro issues:-

5.

Aft record, the lear

n. The appellant has also suff skin was taken from other par een deprived of continuation of come unfit for civil services. is injuries caused by the accid ity due to the accidental injuries mental pain, agony due to injurie on notice of the claim petition, ccident/compensation. om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether the claimant caused by respondent No.1 444, rashly and negligently o

¶2If issue No.1 is prove to compensation, if so to wha

¶3Whether respondent N effective driving licence at th OPR

¶4Relief. ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compen

fered injuries on other parts of rts for skin grafting surgery. T f service, chances of promotion The appellant has suffered hu dent. He also suffered perman s. The appellant and his family es sustained by the appellant in , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow t sustained injuries in an accid while driving truck No.PB-11 on 08.04.2003? OPP ed, whether the claimant is entit at amount and from whom? OPP No.1 was not holding a valid he time of accident, if so, its effe he pleadings and the evidence nsation to the tune of Rs.10,00

The and uge nent has nied wing dent -N-tled P and ect? on 00/-

along with inte present appeal f SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea accident the app claimant-appella drawing salary compulsorily re in question. He and Tribunal h Moreover, he c prospects, speci present appeal b

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

A p awarded by the 23% disability d as per income c in view of the s per month. Mo

erest @ 6% per annum. Henc for enhancement of compensation S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claimant-pellant suffered 23% permanent ant contends that he was emp of Rs.7,055/- per month and d tired from the Army due to the further contends that no amoun has not applied multiplier wh ontends that no amount was gr ial diet and transportation char be allowed and the amount of com r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 10.01.20 n. Therefore, he prays for dismis have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicates e learned Tribunal is on the low due to accident in question. A p ertificate the claimant was draw salary certificate the income of oreover, award reveals that no

ce the claimant/appellant filed n awarded by the Tribunal. S FOR THE PARTIES appellant contends that due to t disability. Learned counsel for ployed in Indian Army and w due to accident, the claimant w injuries suffered to him in accid nt was granted for future prospe hile calculating the compensati ranted for attendant charges, fut rges. He, therefore, prays that mpensation be enhanced. ent-Insurance Company argues t 006 has rightly assessed the amo ssal of the present appeal. the parties and perused the wh that the amount of compensat wer side and claimant has suffe perusal of award further reveals t wing salary of Rs.7,055/- per mon f claimant is assessed as Rs.7,05 o amount was granted for fut

this was was dent ects ion. ture that ount hole tion ered that nth, 55/-

prospects and compensation. F in Military Hos Hospital, he is n these facilities requires interfer SETTLED LAW

10.

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

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

Tribunal has not applied Further, a perusal of the award spital and it is admitted fact th not entitled for reimbursement o are provided free of cost to t rence 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

multiplier while calculating reveals that claimant was admit hat if patient is treated in Milit of treatment as well as medicine the patient. Therefore, the aw 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

tted tary e as ward t of Raj has ort) that tely ct of t of and tion e of y to h he

com tho inju hav Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

(vi) In r und whe

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 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

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. 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

njoy ould AIR dia) onal nes, ave ty. eral f the only ury,

of t hea acc am exp

19.

(i) A res

(ii) who loss ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub evid ear Tri

(iv) of l

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 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

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 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

f the s on s of of not e of s of nent s of him give s of

nat fac

¶20wit Illu ear evid inju per how bec gra Illu is a lon and Tri 75%

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 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

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/-. 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/- .

ther low 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:-

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 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

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/-

: 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

year for ted. was ning tion are on any nder

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

12.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

) 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 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

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 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

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

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

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel

) 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 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

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 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

s of onal ACJ nch d in elhi age with nsel nent med t in deep ract ples

jud mu qua disa disa occ und

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 11 to January 2013. The natur der: "Nature of injury:

(i) compound fracture sha

(ii) fracture both bones lef

(iii) compound fracture bo

award of compensation must co aspects: auma resulting from the accident ding future income; 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

over t; ther y be rlier d to nent n 8 gust

(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 National Insurance Co. Ltd para 61(iii), considering th 50% of the actual salary in th

(c) The third and the last as 12%

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 d. case (supra), more specifica he age of the appellant, would he present case. spect is the interest rate claimed

ant, tate urt. and has that on into erit ples case The t in ally d be

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 Pain and suffering Total

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/-Rs.2,00,000/-Rs.41,69,831/-

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

Rs. per CONCLUSION

13.

In above referred

10.01.2006 is m enhanced amoun Sr. No.

¶1Inco

¶2Futu

¶3Ann

¶4Los annu

¶5Mul

¶6Tran

¶7Pain

¶8Spe

¶9Los

Tota

Com

Enh

14.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and

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 modified accordingly. The app nt of compensation as per the cal Heads ome Rs ure Prospects 50% Rs nual Income Rs s of future earning per um (23% disability) Rs ltiplier 16 Rs nsportation Rs n and sufferings Rs cial Diet Rs s of amenities of life 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

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 pellant-claimant is entitled to lculations made here-under:- Compensation Awarded s.7,055/- s.3527/- (50% of 7,055) s.1,26,984/- (10,582 x 12) s.29,206/-(23% of 1,26,984) s.4,67,296/-(29206x16) s.20,000/- s.50,000/- s.30,000/- s.1,00,000/- s.6,67,296/- s.10,000/- s.6,57,296/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 te Transport Corporation (2022

n of f 9% ated eme 2) 5

Supreme Court per annum from

15.

The compensation al from the date of directed to disbu of claimant/app account details t

16.

Bef to Mr. Vinod Ch matter. Further, disburse the cu period of 10 day

17.

Dis

18.

Pen

November 07, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

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. The claimant/appellant to the Tribunal. fore parting with the judgment, haudhri, Advocate for his able as , the Insurance company-respo urrent scheduled fees to Mr. Vi ys from the date of receipt of a ce sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st 2024

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

culated shall carry an interest @ ion 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 t is directed to furnish his b this Court extends its appreciat ssistance to the Court in the pres ondent No.4 is hereby directed inod Chaudhri, Advocate withi ertified copy of this judgment. tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

9% nt of nths ther ount ank tion sent d to