Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navraj Kumar And Ors vs Avtar Singh And Ors on 22 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
1
FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.
No.22445-CII of 2017 in/&
FAO No.
No.6901 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Reserve: 22.07.2024
Date of Decision: 22.10.2024
NAVRAJ KUMAR AND ORS ......
......Appellant(s)
Vs
AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS ....Respondent
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
MANUJA
Present: Mr. Praagbir S. Dhindsa,
Dhindsa Advocate
for the appellants.
appellant
Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. V.K. Syal, Advocate
for respondent Nos.3 and 5.
Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate
for respondent No.4/Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM No.22445-CII CII of 2017 201 Vide present application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prayer is for releasing the amount of treatment as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as "learned learned Tribunal")) in favour of appellant Nos.2 and 3 from the fixed deposit in the nam namee of appellant No.1.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the application.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "A.V. Padma and Ors. vs R. Ors." reported as 2012 (3) SCC 378 Venugopal and Ors.", 378,, held that learned Tribunals 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332 2 FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) shall not be rigid in releasing the compensation from fixed deposit upon application made by claimants and relevant para thereof is reproduced hereunder: -
"5. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi-
semi literate and d literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds.
rounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after exa examining mining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the cas casee of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him. The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of
2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332 3 FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) the guidelines issued issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice."
Therefore, in view of A.V. Padma's case (supra) and for the reasons mentioned in the application as well as in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the application is allowed and the amount of treatment as awarded by learned Tribunal in favour of appellant No.1 be release released to appellant Nos.. 2 and 3, forthwith.
FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby an amount of Rs.7,50,000 7,50,000/-
was awarded as compensation in favour of appellant No.1 along with interest @ 7.5% % per annum.
Brief Facts
[2]. The appellants/claimants,
appellant filed claim petition before the learned
Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/ Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 24% per annum on account of injuries suffered by appellant No.1 (son of appellant Nos.2 and 3) in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 11.10.2013, while alleging rash aand nd negligent driving by respondent No.1/driver.
[3]. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332 4 FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver and awarded compensation in the following manner:
manner:-
S.No Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs)
1. Medical expenses and Transportation Rs.5,39,141/-
2. Pain and suffering and further medical Rs.1,50,000/-
expenses
3. Personal Attendant Rs.20,000/-
4. Special Diet Rs.10,000/-
5. Miscellaneous and loss of earning of Rs.30,000/-
family TOTAL: Rs.7,49,141/- rounded off to Rs.7,50,000/-
Rs.7,50,000/ [4]. Being aggrieved against the award dated 19.12.2016,, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver been recorded in favour of the appellant appellants by the Tribunal has not been assailed, therefore, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated here. The only grievance raised is about quantum of compensation. Arguments [5]. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower part of body of appellant No.1/injured o.1/injured got crushed in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 11.10.2013. It has been argued that although the appellant No.1 N suffered 10% permanent disability only, he would continue to suffer from various ailments throughout his life due to injuries received by him and would even require further surgeries upon attaining majority. Learned Counsel also submitted that in the present case no compensation has been awarded for loss of future income as well as loss of marriage prospects.
4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332 5 FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) Lastly, hee concluded with the argument that compensation under non non-pecuniary pecuniary heads was also on the lower side and, and thus, liable to be enhanced.
[6]. On the other hand, learned learned counsel representing respondent No.4/Insurance nsurance Company submitted that the appellant appellants/claimants had since been adequately compensated and as such the impugned award warrants no interference and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Discussion [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find force in the arguments arguments advanced by the learning counsel for the appellants/claimants.
appellant Compensation under "Pecuniary Heads"
"Future loss of Income"
Income [8]. The appellants proved on record copy of FIR as Ex.C4; copies of discharge summaries as Ex.C6 to C8, C11 and C12 and copies of discharge cards as Ex.C9 and C10.
[8.1]. In the present case, appellant No.1 No.1 being about 3 years of age at the time of motor vehicular accident got his lower part of the body crushed by his school van on 11.10.2013. He was operated upon and treated in Satguru Pratap Singh Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana where he remained admitted from 11 11.10.2013 .10.2013 to 20.10.13 (10 days) (Ex.C6); from 18.11.2013 to 20.11.2013 (3 days) (Ex.C7) and from 22.12.2013 to 23.12.2013 (2 days) (Ex.C8). Further, he also received treatment from Shree Raghunath Charitable Hospital, Ludhiana where he remained admitted from m 19.03.2014 to 26.03.2014 (7 days) (Ex.C9) and from 24.04.2014 to 25.04.2014 (2 days) (Ex.C10). Even further, he received treatment from Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow where he remained 5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332 6 FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) admitted from 26.07.2014 to 07.08.2014 07.08.2014 (13 days) (Ex.C11). Thus, appellant No.1 N remained hospitalized for a period of 37 days in total. [8.2]. Even though the disability certificate was not annexed with the claim petition but was later presented before learned Tribunal and a photocopy thereof is part of LCR at page No.138.
o.138. A perusal of disability certificate showed that appellant No.1 o.1 suffered 10% physical impairment of progressive nature. Dr. Vikas Bansal while appearing as CW1 deposed that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, appellant No.1 o.1 may have multiple problems in future regarding urinary functions and would require further surgeries in future. Even, Dr. Ravinderjit Singh while appearing as CW3 deposed that appellant No.1 o.1 suffered disability of stress in continence of his his stools which he would continue to suffer throughout his life. Further, Dr. Vikas Kumar while appearing as CW4 deposed that potency status was doubtful till appellant No.1 o.1 attained the age of majority and would require self-calibration calibration at least for initial initial few years.
In such circumstances, considering the extraordinary facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court in its humble opinion considers that appellant No.1 o.1 would suffer functional disability to the extent of at least 25% while bearing in n mind the fact that disability suffered by appellant No.1 is of progressive nature.
[8.3]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Kajal v. Jagdish Chand", reported as (2020) 4 SCC 413, 413, while dealing with the issue of loss of future income of a child in injury cases held that a child's income could be assessed at par with that of a skilled workman; even future prospects @ 40% and multiplier of 18 could be applied. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder: -
6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332 7 FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) "20. Both the courts below have held th that at since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of L 15,000/ 15,000/- per annum can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000/ per annum. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence 15,000/-
but taking notional income to be L 15,000/ 15,000/- per annum is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846/ 4846/- per month.
In our opinion this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40/ 6784.40/- per month, i.e., 81,412.80 per annum. Applying Applying the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to L 14,66,000/ 14,66,000/-."
Now, placing reliance on prevalent minimum wages for skilled labourer at the time of motor vehicular accident, the income of appellant No.1 o.1 is assessed as Rs.5,602/-
Rs.5,602/ per month {Rs. 187/- per day (rounded off)}, and thus, loss of future income while adding 40% future prospects and applying multiplier of 18 is assessed ssessed as Rs.4,23,512/-
Rs.4,23,512/ (5602 x 25/100
/100 = 1400.50 + 40% = 1960.70 x 12 x
18) (rounded off).
"Other her Pecuniary Heads"
[9]. On account of present motor vehicular accident, appellant No.1 suffered multiple injuries and remained admitted as indoor patient for 37 days. A cumulative analysis of testimonies of CW1 and CW3 makes it evidently clear that appellant No.1 o.1 would require further surgeries and for which he may even require transportation. Thus, compensation for future medical expenses as granted by learned Tribunal needs to be reassessed and while placing reliance on Kajal's case (supra) the same same is assessed as Rs.5,00,000/ Rs.5,00,000/-.. The compensation for future 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332 8 FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) transportation is assessed as Rs.2,50,000/-
Rs.2,50,000/ and the compensation under the head of special diet (including future special diet) is assessed as Rs.1,00,000/ Rs.1,00,000/- while placing reliance on judgment rendered rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Abhimanyu Another", reported as (2022) 3 Abhimanyu Partap Singh Vs Namita Sekhon & Another"
557 Further, keeping in mind that appellant N R.C.R (Civil) 557. No.1 o.1 remained in hospital for 37 days and would even require further surgeries, tthe he attendant charges as awarded by learned Tribunal needs to be reassessed and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.
Compensation under "Non-pecuniary "Non pecuniary heads"
[10]. In the present case, appellant No.1 o.1 suffered multiple serious injuries and as per medical opinion of CW4 he may even become impotent upon attaining majority. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental lo loss ss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. In Abhimanyu's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"21. Under the head "non-pecuniary pecuniary damages", the claimant has faced the pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries. It is to observe that to award compensation under the head "pain, shock and suffering", multiple factors are required to be considered from the date of accident, which include the prolonged hospitalization and regular medical assistance, nature of the injuries sustained, the operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering. Simultaneously, he has to suffer post post-accident accident agony for whole ole life, including the amenities of life, which he can enjoy as a normal man but unable to do so on account of permanent disability. In the era of competition, he can perform better as a normal man but
8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332 9 FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) is unable to compete with others. Therefore, under th thee head "pain, shock and suffering", amount of compensation deserves to be granted.
****
23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of injuries in our considered opinion, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
Rs.4,00,000/ in the head of loss of amenities of life and marital bliss, pain and sufferings, loss of enjoyment and loss of expectancy...."
Therefore, after giving thoughtful insight to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation under the heads of loss of marriage prospects; pain and sufferings is cumulatively assessed as Rs.4,00,000/-.
Rs.4,00,000/ Conclusion [11]. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant No.1 shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner manner:-
Sr.No. Nature Amount in
Rupees
1. Loss of future income Rs.4,23,512/-
2. Medical Expenses and transportation (as Rs.5,39,141/-
awarded by ld. Tribunal)
3. Future Medical Expenses Rs.5,00,000/-
4. Pain & Suffering and Loss of marriage Rs.4,00,000/-
prospects
5. Attendant charges (including future attendant Rs.1,00,000/-
charges)
6. Future Transportation Rs.2,50,000/-
7. Special Diet (including future special diet) Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.23,12,653//-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.7,50,000/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.15,62,653//-
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332 10 FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M) [12]. The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is unjust just in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 the interest is enhanced to 9% per aannum nnum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant No.1 from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization while excluding the period of delay in filing the he present appeal. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant No.1 shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. [13]. In view of aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
October 22,, 2024
202 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 05:16:02 :::