Chuni Lal v. Union of India and Others

IN T

Chunni Lal Union of India a

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

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

2.

Bri alongwith Asho Amritsar to Ch PB-02H-5171 (h Singh. He was about 10:00 AM Ropar, on Amirt (hereinafter refe

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA

Da

VERSUS and Others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate for th r. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for r. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th hkula (for short, 'the Tribunal') v the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w pensation of Rs.1,30,000/- along N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that on ok Kumar Suri, Rajpal Mahaja handigarh by means of Maruti hereinafter referred to as the ca driving on his left hand side of M, when they reached near villag tsar-Chandigarh Road, a bus bea erred to as the bus in question) be

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-4565-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision : 05.11.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA he appellant. e respondents. erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Cla vide award dated 11.05.2005 un whereby, the claimant/appellant w with interest @ 6% per annum.

19.12.2001 Pawan Kumar Nay an and Chuni Lal was going fr Zen Car bearing Registration N ar in question) being driven by f the road at a moderate speed. ge of Sahora, Tehsil Kharar, Dist aring registration No.PB-12-C-17 eing driven by Satnam Singh on

for ims nder was yyar rom No. Raj At trict

left hand side o meantime, a M (hereinafter refe by respondent N of Chandigarh. bus in rash and coming from t space/distance t truck came on th and hit into the in the pits by th the truck again the truck had re accident, yet, th bus.

It w question had hit multiple, simple driver of the car to the injuries su suffered injuries account of rash

It w simple and griev etc. His right l

of the road at a moderate speed Military truck, blue coloured, be erred to as the offending truck) b No.4 Naresh Kumar also came fr Ignoring all traffic rules, the of d negligent manner despite see the opposite direction and the to overtake the bus. In the pro he extreme wrong side of the ro car of the appellants. As a resu he side of the road. The driver o on its left side but due to the im educed. The driver of the bus in he rear side of the offending truck was further alleged that the offe t the bus in question as well. Al e and grievous injuries and the r namely Shri Raj Singh @ Raju uffered by them. The bus was a s. Hence, it was submitted that and negligent driving of the offe was further alleged that the app vous injuries including head inju lung was badly ruptured with th

d came from opposite side. In earing registration No.90-E-635 being driven rashly and negligen from opposite side i.e. from the s ffending truck tried to overtake eing that the car in question w ere was no proper and suffici ocess of overtaking, the offend ad i.e. almost on the Kachcha be lt of conclusion the car was push of the offending truck tried to div mpact of the accident, the speed n question tried its best to avoid k struck against the right side of ending truck, after hitting the car ll the occupants of the car suffe car was also badly damaged. T and Ashok Kumar Suri succumb also damaged and some passeng t the accident took place solely ending truck by its driver. ellant Chuni Lal suffered multip ury and multiple fracture in the r he rib bones. From the site of

ntly side was ient ding erm hed vert d of f the r in ered The bed gers y on ple,

accident, the ap referred to PGI, still critical and transportation, v

3.

Up the factum of ac

4.

Fro issues:-

ppellant was taken to Civil Ho , Chandigarh. It was further sub d he has already spent more th visitors, special diet etc., Hence h on notice of the claim petition, ccident/compensation. om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether the accident account of rash and negligen by respondent No.4 ? OPP

¶2To what amount of com Nayyar is entitled to on acco in this accident and from who

¶3To what amount of c etc are entitled to on accoun the present accident and from

¶4To what amount of co entitled to on account of th present accident and from wh

¶5To what amount of co etc are entitled to on account in the present accident and fr

spital Kharar, from where he w bmitted by him that his condition han Rs.2,00,000/- on his treatme he filed the claim petition. , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow t in question had taken place nt driving of Truck No.90-E-635 mpensation claimant Pawan Kum ount of the injuries suffered by h om? OPP compensation claimants Rajni B nt of death of Raj Singh @ Raju m whom? OPP ompensation claimant Chunni La he injuries suffered by him in hom? OPP ompensation claimant Nirmal Ka t of death of Sh. Ashok Kumar S rom whom? OPP

was n is ent, nied wing on mar him Bala u in al is anta

5.

Aft record, the learn alongwith intere appeal for enhan SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea assessed by the the Heads pain amount has been He further conte appellant had s certificate was a allowed and the

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

A p attendant charg certificate (Ex.P

¶6To what amount of Mahajan is entitled to on a him in the present accident a

¶7Relief. ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compens est @ 6% per annum. Hence the ncement of compensation award S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claimant-a learned Tribunal is on the low and suffering is also on the low n awarded for attendant charges, ends that the learned Tribunal h suffered 25% permanent disabi annexed as Ex.P5/1. He, therefo amount of compensation be enh r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 11.05.20 n. Therefore, he prays for dismis have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicates th ges, transportation and special P5/1) shows 25% permanent di

f compensation claimant Raj account of the injuries received and from whom? OPP he pleadings and the evidence sation to the tune of Rs.1,30,00 claimant/appellant filed the pres ed by the Tribunal. S FOR THE PARTIES appellant contends that the amo wer side and amount assessed un wer side. He further submits that , transportation and special diet has failed to appreciate the fact t ility in regard to which disabi ore, prays that the present appeal hanced. ent-Insurance Company argues t 005 has rightly assessed the amo ssal of the present appeal. the parties and perused the wh hat no amount has been awarded l diet etc. Further, the disabi isability qua both limbs. So far

Pal by on 00/- sent ount nder t no etc. that ility l be that ount hole for ility

income of the a were shown in deducting the ta comes out to be assessed as Rs.7 enhanced amou admission and Consequently, th documented evi Court. SETTLED LAW

10.

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

¶5ma com res awa wro equ dam or

appellant is concerned, his inco the income tax return for the ax payable which is Rs.7,370/- n e Rs.84,480/-. Therefore, the m 7,040 (Rs.84,480/12). Moreover unt of compensation, the reco expenses incurred for medic his Court shall adjudicate the co idence on record. Therefore, th 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

ome is shows as Rs.91,850/- wh assessment year 2001-2002. A net annual income of the appell monthly income of the deceased r, with respect to determination ord contains evidence of hosp cal treatment and hospitalizati ompensation, in accordance with he award requires inference by t 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

hich After lant d is n of pital ion. this t of Raj has ort) that tely ct of t of and tion

disa be suff com tho inju hav Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

(vi)

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

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).

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; 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

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

11.05.2005 is m enhanced amoun Sr. No. Inco Ann Los annu Mul Pain Spe Med Tran Atte Los

Tota

Com

Enh

14.

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

15.

Res of compensation

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 nual Income Rs s of future earning per um (25%) Rs ltiplier (7) Rs n and sufferings Rs cial Diet Rs dical expenses Rs nsportation charges Rs endant Charges 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 spondent Nos. 1 to 4 are directe n along with interest with the Tri

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peal is allowed. The award da pellant-claimant is entitled to lculations made here-under:- Compensation Awarded s.7,040/- s.84,480/- s.21,120/- s.1,47,840/- (21,120 x 7) s.1,00,000/- s.30,000/- s.78,114/- s.25,000/- s.50,000/- s.75,000/- s.5,05,954/- s.1,30,000/- s.3,75,954/- 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. ed to deposit the enhanced amo ibunal (jointly and severally) wit

ated eme 2) 5 9% ount

a period of two The Tribunal is interest in the a furnish his bank

16.

FA

17.

Pen

November 05, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

months from the date of receipt further directed to disburse the a account of claimant/appellant. Th k account details to the Tribunal. AO is Disposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st 2024

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

t of certified copy of this judgme amount of compensation along w he claimant/appellant is directed

tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

ent. with