Hari Sharan Sharma v. Darshan Singh and Ors

IN T

Hari Sharan Sha Darshan Singh a

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

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

2.

Bri There was a m come to attend law Sohan Lal S to the house af reached near C revenue limits

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da arma (since deceased through his VERSUS and Ors.

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for r. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for th r. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for r. R.C.Gupta, Advocate for respo -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

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.75,000/- along w N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that the marriage of his brother-in-law's the same. On 09.12.2003, the a Sharma had gone for a morning fter the morning walk and whe Chakarbarty Petrol Pump on N of village Dulladi, then a Ta

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-2810-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision : 05.11.2024 s LRs) ....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA

e appellant. ondent No.3 – Insurance Co. erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Cla ide award dated 24.03.2006 un whereby, the claimant/appellant w with interest @ 6% per annum. appellant is a resident of Rajpu son at village Dulladi and he h appellant along with his brother walk and when they were return en at about 7.45 am the appell Nabha-Malerkotla Road, within ata Sumo bearing registration N

for ims nder was ura. had -in-ning lant

UP-16-0367 (h respondent No.2 behind and stru appellant fell on left side. The damaged and it witnessed by So following the ap dated 09.12.200 was got register and was taken o driver of the off for the trial to t accident, the ap his treatment, m treatment.

3.

Up the factum of ac

4.

Fro issues:-

hereinafter referred to as 'the 2, rashly and negligently, so as t uck against the appellant from n the ground and suffered fractu left femur i.e hip joint of left had to be replaced by performi ohan Lal Sharma son of Krishan ppellant. The matter was repor 03 under Sections 279/337 and 33 red, in which the offending vehic on superdari from the court by r fending vehicle was arrested by the Court. He is facing trial be ppellant suffered 40% permanen medicines, special diet, fare c on notice of the claim petition, ccident/compensation. om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether claimant had rash and negligent driving No.UP-16-0367 by responde OPP

e offending vehicle'), driven to endanger human life, came fr behind, as a result of which, ure of left femur i.e. hip joint of t side of the appellant was tota ing operation. The occurrence w n Dayal of village Dulladi, who w rted to the police and FIR No. 38 IPC, Police Station Sadar Nab cle was taken into police possess respondent No.1. Respondent N the police and he has been sent efore the Court. As a result of nt disability. He spent Rs.3 lacs charges etc. and he is still un , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow d suffered injuries on account of Tata Sumo bearing registrat ent No.2 on 09.12.2003 as alleg

by rom ally was was bha sion No.2 t up s on nder nied wing t of tion ed?

5.

Aft record, the lear along with inte present appeal f SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea suffered 40% pe the amount asse has erred in awa that the claima drawing a salary income while as granted for futu granting the com and the amount

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

I h record of this ca

¶2Whether the claiman compensation, if so to what a

¶3Whether respondent N licence at the time of alleged

¶4Relief. ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compen erest @ 6% per annum. Henc for enhancement of compensation S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claimant-ap ermanent disability due to this essed by the learned Tribunal is arding Rs.75,000/- lumpsum as c ant (since deceased) was work y of Rs.16,506/- per month and ssessing the compensation. He fu ure prospects and multiple was mpensation. He therefore prays of compensation be enhanced. r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 24.03.20 n. Therefore, he prays for dismis have heard learned counsel for ase.

nt is entitled to the amount amount and from whom? OPP No.2 was not holding a valid driv d accident, if so, its effect? OPR he pleadings and the evidence nsation to the tune of Rs.75,00 ce the claimant/appellant filed n awarded by the Tribunal. S FOR THE PARTIES ppellant contends that the appell accident. He further contends t on the lower side and the Tribu compensation. He further conte king as Junior Engineer and w the Tribunal has not considered urther contends that no amount w not taken into consideration wh that the present appeal be allow ent-Insurance Company argues t 006 has rightly assessed the amo ssal of the present appeal. the parties and perused the wh

of ving on 00/- lant that unal nds was his was hile wed that ount

9.

A p suffered 40% p reveals that the certificate issue his monthly inco payable Rs.300/ with respect to contains eviden incurred for me adjudicate the record. Therefor SETTLED LAW

10.

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

¶5ma com res awa wro equ dam

perusal of the award indicates t permanent disability as per Ex.A e claimant was working as Ju d by Executive Engineer, Mech ome was Rs.16,506/- per month /-, his net monthly income come determination of enhanced am nce of hospital admission, the edical treatment and hospitalizat compensation, in accordance w re, the award requires inference b 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

that claimant (since deceased) h A. A perusal of the award furt unior Engineer and as per sal hanical Drainage, Division Rajpu . Income after deducting of the es out to be Rs.16,206/-. Moreov mount of compensation, the rec claimant's earning and expen tion. Consequently, this Court sh with the documented evidence by this Court. 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

had ther lary ura, tax ver, cord nses hall on t of Raj has ort) that tely ct of t of and

or disa be suff com tho inju hav Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

(vi)

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 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

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. 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).

e of y to h he be njoy ould AIR dia) onal nes, ave ty. eral

In r und whe of t hea acc am exp

19.

(i) A res

(ii) who loss ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub evid ear Tri

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 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

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 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.

only ury, ence f the s on s of of not e of s of nent s of him give

(iv) of l nat fac

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

) 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 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

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/-. 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

ages ther low and or's f the y is nce, wer Rs. ility d no leak

Tri 75% 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

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 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

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/- 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

y as year for ted. was ning tion are on any

Sections 166, 1 aspects:-

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

12.

Ho Express Tran. C

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 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

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 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:-

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

" 7

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

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel

¶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 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

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 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

us: 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

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

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 h metacarpals right hand

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

(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% In respect of the afo down the interest rate durin

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 resaid, the appellant has wate ng the course of hearing to 9%

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

Rs. per

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 The appellant would, thus, 41,69,831/- as claimed along w r annum from the date of applica

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/- be entitled to the compensation with simple interest at the rate of ation till the date of payment.

sh's ious nce ates tled t, as d as n of f 9%

CONCLUSION

13.

In above referred

24.03.2006 is m the enhanced am Sr. No.

¶1Inco

¶2Futu

¶3Ann

¶4Los annu

¶5Mul Atte Pain Nut Med

¶10Tran Los Tota

¶13Com

Enh

14.

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

N :- view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present app modified accordingly. The LRs mount of compensation as per the Heads ome Rs ure Prospects 50% Rs nual Income Rs s of future earning per um 40% disability Rs ltiplier 13 Rs (1 endant Charges Rs n and sufferings Rs trition & Special Diet Rs dical Rs nspiration 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 t Cases 107, the amount so calc m the date of filing of claim petiti

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peal is allowed. The award da of appellant-claimant is entitled e calculations made here-under:- Compensation Awarded s.16,206/- s.8,103/-(50% of 16,206) s.2,91,708/- s.1,16,683/- (40% of 2,91,708) s.15,16,881/- ,16,683x13x12) s.70,000/- s.75,000/- s.50,000/- s.34,462/ s.30,000/- s.1,00,000/- s.18,76,343/- s.75,000/- s.18,01,343/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 te Transport Corporation (2022 culated shall carry an interest @ ion till the date of realization.

ated d to - eme 2) 5 9%

15.

The compensation al from the date of during the pend are now entitle Tribunal is furt interest in the ac are directed to fu

16.

Dis

17.

Pen

November 05, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

e Insurance Company is directed long with interest with the Tribu f receipt of certified copy of this ency of the appeal, therefore, hi ed to receive the amount of co ther directed to disburse the am ccount of LRs of claimant/appel furnish their bank account details sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st 2024

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

d to deposit the enhanced amoun unal within a period of two mon s judgment. Since the appellant d s LRs were brought on record, w ompensation in equal shares. T mount of compensation along w lant. The LRs of claimant/appell s to the Tribunal. tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

nt of nths died who The with