Hanuman @ Jagdev v. State of Haryana and Ors

IN T

Hanuman @ Jag State of Haryana

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The against the awar Tribunal, Rewar 166 of the Moto was dismissed. FACTS NOT IN

2.

The gone to village Roadways bus N bus was driving violation of the

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da gdev

VERSUS a and Others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Prashant Singh Ghuman, Advo r. Arun Yadav, Advocate and r. Amrit Singh, Advocate for the r. Ayuwan Singh, AAG, Haryana r. B.K.Bagri, Advocate for respon r. D.P.Gupta, Advocate and r. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been pr rd dated 02.06.2007 passed by t ri (for short, 'the Tribunal') in th or Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby N DISPUTE e brief facts of the case are that e Nangal Sirohi (Khatiwar) to No.HR-47-9052. While returning g the bus in a rash and negligent terms and conditions of traffic ru

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-3273-2007 (O&M) ate of Decision : 27.09.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA ocate, appellant. a for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ndent No.3. respondent No.4. referred by the claimant/appell the learned Motor Accident Cla he claim petition filed under Sect y, the claim petition of the claim t on 22.02.2004, the petitioner h attend marriage party in Hary g from the village, the driver of manner. He was driving the bu rules. Due to his negligence, the

lant ims tion mant had yana s in

turned turtle th sustained fractu Petitioner is 44 Rs.6,000/- per m

3.

Up the factum of ac

4.

Fro issues:-

5.

Aft record, the learn SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea ground that FIR dismissed by the

hereby causing injury on the p ure in the left arm and could not years of age and is a mason by month. on notice of the claim petition, ccident/compensation. om the pleadings of the parties, 1) Whether the accident i the petitioner took plac driving of driver/respondent No.3 2) Whether the petitioner account of the injuries amount and from whom 3) Whether respondent N effective driving lice question, as alleged? O 4) Whether the insurance liable to pay compens the written statement? 5) Relief.

ter taking into consideration th ned Tribunal dismissed the claim S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claimant-a R was not lodged by the claiman e learned Tribunal.

person of the petitioner. Petitio work for a period of three mon profession. His monthly incom , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow in question resulting into injuries ce on account of rash and neglig bus No.HR-47-9052 by 3? OPP r is entitled to the compensation s sustained by him and if so to w m? OPP No. 3 was not holding a valid a ence at the time of accident OPR-4 e company/respondent No.4 is ation on the grounds as alleged OPR-4 he pleadings and the evidence m petition. Hence the present appe S FOR THE PARTIES appellant contends that only on nt-appellant, the claim petition w

oner ths. e is nied wing s to gent its n on what and in not d in on eal.

7.

Per vehemently arg vehicle was exa present appeal b

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

Sin therefore, the r understand is rep "11 gon No. Wh neg did Du pet of R do sub eng Bha Roa vill

r contra, learned for gues that FIR was not lodged a amined when it was a marriage be dismissed. have heard learned counsel for ase. nce, the present case pertains to relevant portion of the award, produced hereunder:-

¶1PW1 Hanuman has asserted ne to village Khatiwas (Nangal .HR-47-9052 being driven by hile returning to the village, the gligent manner. The occupants o d not pay any heed and kept on d e to his rash and negligent driv titioner sustained fracture in the Rs.10,000/- on special died and the job for the period of three bmitted that on 22.02.2004, a gaged to carry the marriage par an has submitted that accordi adways, the bus No.HR-47-9052 lage Nangal Sirohi on 22.02.20 e workshop through a crane o

respondent-Insurance Compa and no occupant of the offend party and further contends that the parties and perused the wh the year 2007 and burnt catego which is unburnt and legible on oath that on 22.02.2004, he h Sirohi) in a marriage party in its driver namely Sudesh Kum bus was being driven in a rash a of the bus warned the driver, but driving the bus in a zig-zag mann ving, the bus turned turtle and left hand. He has spent an amo d transportation. He was unable e month. PW-3 Ram Chander bus of Haryana Roadways w rty to village Khatiwas. PW5 Su ng to the record of the Harya 2 had carried a marriage party 04 at 3:00 PM. It was brough on 23.02.2004 at 8.10 PM. T

any ding hole ory, e to had bus mar. and t he ner. ount e to has was uraj ana y to t to

pho Ex.

¶12bus not cas

¶13cau cas dep resp con Yas and at J Pra (20 bro cau No. fav

10.

A p clear sequence

otocopies of the arrival and dep PF.

PW6 Jagmal Singh ha s was stolen and he was charge-t lodge any report with the police e cross-examination that he has se and the entries in Ex.PE and E

No FIR was ever lod using the accident. The bus was se. Surprisingly, no other occu pose that the accident was cause e petitioner is based on presum pondents contended that crimina nsideration of the claim case. H shwant Singh Baghel and anoth d others, 2006 ACJ, 2328; Hon'b Jabalpur, Magan Vs. xxxxxxxxxx adesh High Court and Smt. Sar 003) ACC 428, Hon'ble Punjab a ought on the record clearly ind used due to the rash and negligen .3 while plying the bus No.HR-4 vour of the respondents and again perusal of the award indicates t of events leading to the ac

eparture of the bus are Ex.PE a as submitted that the stephney of -sheeted by the department. He e. PW5 Suraj Bhan also admitted no personal knowledge about Ex.PF are not in his hand. dged against respondent No.3 s never impounded in any crimi upant of the bus has come forth ed by respondent No.3. The case mptions. Learned counsel for al case is a condition precedent He has relied upon the cases titled her Vs. Shiv Prasad Vishwakam ble High Court of Madhya Prad xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(illegible) Madh la xxx (illegible) Chand & Ors. and Haryana High Court. The fa dicates that no xxxx (illegible) w nt driving on the part of respond 47-9052. This issue is answered nst the petitioner. that PW1's testimony establishe ccident. The passengers' repea

and f the did d in for inal h to e of for d as man desh dhya III acts was dent d in es a

warnings demon but persistent an driver failed to The driver's co breach of duty conduct in the causal link betw

11.

Acc evidence of the the injuries susta

12.

A testified, that on to transport a m this by stating t No. HR-47-905 Sirohi on the sa was brought bac records of the bu

13.

Acc evidence of the the injuries sust by crane is a d accident. The ne damage, which of Ex. PE and E

nstrate that the driver's behavior nd deliberate. This underscores, exercise the reasonable care ex ontinued reckless conduct, despi of care owed to the passengers. bus overturning and PW1 susta ween the driver's action and the h cordingly, the testimony of PW proximate cause of the acciden ained. perusal of the award further n 22.02.2004, a bus belonging t marriage party to Village Khatiw that, according to the official re 52 was deployed to transport a ame day at 3:00 PM. He further ck to the workshop by crane at 8 us were exhibited as Ex. PE and cordingly, the testimony of PW proximate cause of the acciden tained. The fact that the bus had decisive piece of evidence that ecessity of crane assistance to tr is indicative of an accident. The Ex. PF further corroborates the t

r was not momentary or inadvert , the element of negligence, as xpected of a person in his positi ite foreseeable risks, amounts t . The culmination of this neglig aining injuries further satisfies harm caused. W1 provides cogent and compell nt and the liability of the driver shows that PW3 Ram Chan o Haryana Roadways was enga was. PW5 Suraj Bhan corrobora ecords of Haryana Roadways, B marriage party to Village Nan r stated that on 23.02.2004, the 8:10 PM. The arrival and depart Ex. PF. W1 provides cogent and compell nt and the liability of the driver d to be towed back to the worksh substantiates the occurrence of ransport the bus implies substan e documentary evidence in the fo timeline and the movements of

tent ion. to a gent ling for nder ged ated Bus ngal bus ture ling for hop f an ntial

vehicle, thereby involvement of t

14.

PW medical board, w attributed to mil PG, was duly p has authenticate medical expend submitted the M injuries as a resu

15.

The corroborate that evidence, thus, also supports th arising from the

16.

A p against Respond impounded in an passengers from by Respondent speculation, whi

17.

It i Bench of this C [2014(57) RCR criminal proceed

y conclusively establishing the the offending vehicle. W7, Dr. A.K. Saini, testified that which assessed claimant's - Han ld stiffness in the left wrist. The roduced in evidence. Additiona ed the OPD slip (Ex. PC) and tes iture of Rs. 700/- for the plaster MLR (Ex. PB), which corrobo ult of the accident in question. e testimonies and documentary t the petitioner sustained injurie not only establishes the factual e medical expenses incurred, val e accident. perusal of the award further re dent No. 3 in connection with ny criminal case. The tribunal's m the bus have come forward to No. 3, effectively renders the ich is legally unfounded and unt s well-established principle of la Court in the case of Chhindo D R (civil) 687], that the mere reli dings for negligence under the M

e factum of the accident and the petitioner was examined by numan @ Jagdev, disability at 6.5 disability certificate, marked as ally, PW2, Dr. Ghan Shyam Mit stified that the petitioner incurre . Furthermore, PW1, Hanuman, orates that the petitioner sustain y evidence presented collectiv es in the accident in question. T basis of the petitioner's injury lidating the claim for compensat eveals that no FIR was registe the accident, and the bus was s observation that, notably, no ot testify that the accident was cau e petitioner's case based on m enable. aw as confirmed by the Coordin Devi v. KC Oil Mills and Oth inquishment of the right to init Motor Vehicles Act does not oper

5%, Ex. ttal, ed a has ned vely The but tion ered not ther used mere nate hers iate

as an admission not, in any mann

18.

In t result from negl and warrants rev a criminal case misconstrues th criminal proceed

19.

The proceedings wi Vehicle Acciden

20.

The claims arising identifying inco on assessing th standard of proo stage can be ma case of Anita S 473, wherein the "22 Cou stan cla pre On

n of the absence of civil liability ner, bar the claimant from pursui the present case, the Tribunal's c ligent driving of the vehicle in q versal. The tribunal incorrectly r as the basis for dismissing the c he nature of civil liability, whic dings. e Tribunal, consequently, erred b th the absence of negligence, nt Claims can be substantiated by e Hon'ble Supreme Court has co from motor vehicle accidents, onsistencies or infirmities in the he entire body of evidence to of based on the preponderance o ade to the judgment rendered by Sharma Vs. New India Assura e Supreme Court has held as und

¶2Equally, we are conce urt to be cognizant of the fact th ndards of proof like in a crimin im cases. The standard of pro eponderance of probabilities, rat e needs to be mindful that the a

y. A waiver of criminal action d ing a civil claim for compensatio conclusion that the accident did question is fundamentally untena relied on the absence of the filing claim of negligence. This appro ch is determined independently by equating the absence of crimi disregarding the fact that Mo y a different standard of evidenc onsistently held that, in adjudicat , the emphasis should not be testimony of the prime witness ascertain whether it satisfies of probabilities. The reliance at t y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ance Co. Ltd. 2021(1) SCC (C der :- erned over the failure of the H hat strict principles of evidence a nal trial are inapplicable in MA oof in such like matters is one ther than beyond reasonable dou approach and role of Courts wh

does on. not able g of oach y of inal otor ce. ting on but this Crl) High and ACT e of ubt.

exa fau in a pla ver aro

21.

In v due weight to t standards. Since to provide expe victims, such a spirit of the sta justice.

22.

On

02.06.2007 pas absence of appli

23.

In v aside.

amining evidence in accident cl ult with non-examination of some a criminal trial; but, instead sho aced on record by the parties to rsion is more likely than not tr ose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joa 6, wherein this Court reiterated t "7. It would hardly need a m on the part of the first respo van as set up by the claima the learned Tribunal on th probabilities and certainly reasonable doubt." view of the well-settled principl the witness's testimony marks e the Motor Vehicles Act is a w editious relief and compensatio rigid and hyper-technical appr atute, defeating its overarching n touch-stone of hereinabove di ssed by learned Tribunal Rewa ication of judicial mind. view of the above, the award d

laim cases ought not to be to f e best eyewitnesses, as may happ ould be only to analyze the mater o ascertain whether the claiman rue. A somewhat similar situat aquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 S that: mention that the plea of neglige ondent who was driving the pick ants was required to be decided e touchstone of preponderance not on the basis of proof beyo les, the Tribunal's failure to acc a departure from established le welfare-oriented legislation inten on to the dependents of decea roach undermines the purpose objective of ensuring substant iscussed findings, the award da ari, stand vitiated by a comp dated 02.06.2007 is liable to be

find pen rial nt's tion SCC ence kup d by e of ond cord egal ded ased and tive ated lete

24.

Wi evidence of hos medical treatme the compensatio SETTLED LAW

25.

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

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

th respect to determination of spital admission, the claimant's ent and hospitalization. Conseq on in accordance with the docum 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

compensation, the record conta earning and expenses incurred quently, this Court shall adjudic mentary evidence on the record. 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

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

hav Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

(vi) In r und whe of t hea acc

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 the claimant, that compensation ads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) rel count of permanent disability,

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 n will be granted under any of lating to loss of future earnings future medical expenses, loss

AIR 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

26.

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

27.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age Ins

) Reasonable figures on con ate, loss of consortium and funer ) Future prospects for all cate es: with permanent job; self-emp e relevant portion of the judgmen " Therefore, we think it seems to us that reasonabl namely, loss of estate, loss o should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40 The principle of revisiting principle. But the revisit sho centric. We think that it wou we have quantified should b every three years and the en 10% in a span of three ye because that will bring in heads." n'ble Supreme Court in the ca Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has

¶7There are three aspects which ) the application of multiplier of The aforesaid increase of m e of the appellant as 23 years re urance Company Limited v. Pr 00 (SC). In para 46 of the said

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 d judgment, the Constitution Ben

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

effe Tra gro fac for con app

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel

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

(iii) The inability of the vi with its amenities;

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; ctim to lead a normal life toget

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

jud mu qua disa disa occ und

(iv) Medical expenses incl required to undertake

(v) Loss of expectation of The aforesaid principle has dgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanu ltiplier method was logically so antify the loss of income as ability suffered in an accident. In the factual contours of th ability certificate, it shows th casions for various number of 11 to January 2013. The natur der: "Nature of injury:

(i) compound fracture sha

(ii) fracture both bones lef

(iii) compound fracture bo

(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th

(v) subtrochanteric fractu

(vi) fracture shaft femur

(vii) fracture both bones lef We have also peruse petition showing the curren though it is stated by learne

luding those that the victim may in future; and f life." [emphasis supplied] also been emphasized in an ear uja case (supra) opining that ound and legally well established a result of death or perman he present case, if we examine he admission/hospitalization on days over 1½ years from Aug re of injuries had been set out aft left humerus ft forearm th bones right forearm h metacarpals right hand ure right femur ft leg ed the photographs annexed to nt physical state of the appella ed counsel for the respondent St

y be rlier d to nent n 8 gust t as ant,

Corporation that the same w Be that as it may, this is the the nature of injuries itself been opined in para 13 of S while applying the multipl advancement in life and c consideration. We are, thus, unequivo in the contention of the app with regard to future prospec of the appellant taking the p quantification of the same National Insurance Co. Ltd para 61(iii), considering th 50% of the actual salary in th

(c) The third and the last as 12% In respect of the afo down the interest rate durin view of the judicial pronoun case (supra). On this aspect dispute raised by the learne the claim was confined to applied by this Court.

was not on record in the trial co e position even after treatment a f show their extent. Further, it Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) t lier method, future prospects career are also to be taken i ocally of the view that there is m pellant and the aforesaid princip cts must also be applied in the c permanent disability as 31.1%. T on the basis of the judgment d. case (supra), more specifica he age of the appellant, would he present case. spect is the interest rate claimed resaid, the appellant has wate ng the course of hearing to 9% ncements including in the Jagdis t, once again, there was no seri ed counsel for the respondent o 9% in line with the interest ra

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

Rs. per CONCLUSION

28.

In above referred

02.06.2007 is compensation as

CONCLUSION

¶8The result of the afores principles, the calculation of set out in para 5 of the syno follows:

Heads Loss of earning power (Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100 Future prospects (50 per cent addition) Medical expenses including transport charges, nourishment, etc. Loss of matrimonial prospects Loss of comfort, loss of amenities and mental agony Pain and suffering Total The appellant would, thus, 41,69,831/-as claimed along w r annum from the date of applica N view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present app set aside accordingly. The s per the calculations made here-

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 appellant-claimant is entitled -under:-

tled t, as d as n of f 9% ated

Sr. No. Inco Los Ann Los annu Mul

¶6Los Atte Tran Pain Spe Med Los

Tota

29.

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

30.

Ins with the Tribuna this judgment.

31.

Sin legal heirs were is directed to d account of the

Heads ome Rs s of future prospects 25% Rs nual Income Rs s of future earning per um 6.5 Rs ltiplier 14 Rs s of earning due to disability Rs endant charges Rs nsportation Charges Rs n and sufferings Rs cial Diet Rs dical Expenses Rs s of Amenities of life Rs al Compensation 1,6 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 urance Company is directed to d al within a period of two months nce the appellant died during th brought on record vide order da disburse the amount of compen e legal heirs of claimant/app

Compensation Awarded s.3,750/- s.937/- (25% of 3750) s.56,249/- (4687 x 12) s.3,937/- s.55,118/- s.30,000/- s.5,000/- s.5,000/- s.20,000/- s.10,000/- s.2,000/- s.20,000/- 65,118/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 e Transport Corporation (2022 culated shall carry an interest @ on till the date of realization. deposit the amount of compensat s from the date of receipt of copy he pendency of this appeal and ated 01.04.2016, therefore, Tribu nsation along with interest in pellant in equal ratio. The le

eme 2) 5 @9% tion y of his unal

representatives account details t

32.

In

18.07.2024, the scheduled fees t date of receipt o

33.

Dis

34.

Pen

September 27, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

of the claimants/appellants ar to the Tribunal. view of the order passed in e insurance company is hereby to Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate wi of copy of this judgment. sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st 2024

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

re directed to furnish their ba n FAO No.1682 of 2007 da y directed to deposit the curr ithin a period of ten days from tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

ank ated