Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohit Garg vs Hari Ram Deceased Thr His Legal ... on 4 July, 2022
FAO-15887-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-15887-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on: 04.05.2022
Date of decision: 04.07.2022
MOHIT GARG
..Appellant
Versus
HARI RAM DECEASED THROUGH HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ORS.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
for respondent-Insurance Company.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. The claimant prays for the modification of award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') while allowing a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act', on
account of injuries suffered by him. He after getting licence started
practicing as an advocate in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh and other Tribunals in the year 2005. The unfortunate incident
took place on 10.05.2012, when he was going to attend, a case on behalf of
Central Government before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, at
Shimla, along with two other colleagues in his own car. The correctness of
findings with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the Tribunal are not
in dispute. The only question which arises for adjudication is as to what
should be the appropriate amount of compensation.
2. For that purpose, some facts are required to be noticed. On
account of accident with a truck, the appellant was admitted in Indira
1 of 6
FAO-15887-2018 (O&M) -2-
Gandhi Medical Hospital, Shimla, and thereafter, he was referred to Post
Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences at Chandigarh where he was
admitted in the Advanced Trauma Centre. He had suffered head injuries and
third nerve palsy. The movement of the left eye stopped. He developed
Diplopia (double vision) and retina of his left eye was diluted, consequently,
his vision (eye sight) fell to 6/36. The appellant also underwent treatment at
Neuro Ophthalmology Department in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. On the
directions of the Court, the Medical Board assessed the permanent disability
of the appellant which is extracted as under:-
"This is to certify that Mr. Mohit Garg son of Shri T.R.
Garg, Age 37 years old Male Registration No.1157
resident of # 419, Sector-21, Panchkula is a case of
Ophthalmic disability calculated as 34% (Visual
Disability-18%, Cranial nerve palsy-20%) Hearing
disability Calculated as 26% as per PTA from PGI
Chandigarh. So collective Total disability calculated as
50%. He is physically Disabled/Visual Disabled/Speech
& Hearing Disabled and has 50% (fifty percent)
permanent/temporary, (physical impairment/Visual
Impairment/Speech & Hearing Impairment) in relation
to his/her Both ears and Left eye involvement."
3. The Tribunal has granted compensation under the following
heads:-
Sr. No. Head of compensation Amount awarded
1. Permanent Disability 1,00,000/-
2. Medical expenses 43,058/-
3. Pain and Suffering 2,00,000/-
4. Loss of Income 1,20,000/-
5. Future Loss of Income NIL
6. Nutritious Diet 20,000/-
7. Attendant Charges 10,000/-
8. Transportation Charges 40,000/-
Total compensation - 5,33,058/-
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book as
well as the record.
2 of 6
FAO-15887-2018 (O&M) -3-
5. The learned counsel representing the appellant has focused his
arguments on denial of loss of future income on the ground that the income
of the appellant has been increasing every year, therefore, there is no loss of
future income. Under this ground, the Tribunal has not awarded any loss of
income. The learned counsel submits that the appellant was working as the
Senior Panel Counsel for the Central Government and he was allotted 99
cases before the occurrence of the said accident, during the period of one
year immediately before the accident. He submits that thereafter, he was not
allotted any case for a period of one year as he had met with an accident. He
further submits that the appellant apart from the other loses, has suffered
loss of amenities and will have to engage a driver during his entire life. He
submits that the statement of Dr. Jagdeep, Medical Officer, General
Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula, is to be read in the correct perspective. He
submits that Dr. Jagdeep has only stated that the appellant can read with his
right eye which has normal vision. However, he submits that the appellant
has not only suffered double vision but also he has been diagnosed as a case
of Oculomotor Nerve Palsy. He submits that if because of the accident the
appellant had not suffered any disability, he would have grown at a much
faster pace. He submits that the gestation period for a practising advocate is
sufficiently long and the appellant was only seven years old in the practice
when the unfortunate accident took place.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
Insurance Company contends that the appellant has already been granted
sufficient compensation and the Court should not interfere in the amount
assessed by the tribunal.
7. At this stage, it is appropriate to notice that the Tribunal
refused to grant loss of future income because the income of the appellant
3 of 6
FAO-15887-2018 (O&M) -4-
for successive years has seen gradual growth. At this stage, it would be
appropriate to note the income depicted in Income Tax Returns. In the
Financial Year 2010-11, the gross income is Rs.2,20,000/-. During the
Financial Year 2011-12, the gross income is Rs.3,29,066/- and in Financial
Year 2012-13, the gross income is Rs.4,70,150/-, whereas, during the
Financial Year 2013-14, the gross income is Rs.8,65,043/-, in Financial
Year 2014-15, the gross income is Rs.11,73,877/- and Financial Year 2015-
16, the gross income is Rs.12,58,247/-, in Financial Year 2016-17, the gross
income is Rs.14,87,929/-.
8. No doubt, the income of the appellant has consistently grown.
However, if the unfortunate incident had not taken place and he had not
suffered the permanent disability, he may have grown more rapidly. While
assessing the compensation, the Tribunal is required to apply some amount
of guess work based on the logic and common sense. It is well known that
after the initial gestation period is over, the lawyers practising in the High
Court or bigger cities, start earning handsomely. The appellant was barely
into his fifth year when he started his filing his Income Tax Return. No
doubt, at that time, the income was Rs.2,26,960/-. It is also proved on the
file that the Central Government empanelled him as the Senior Panel
Counsel to defend it in the Armed Forces Tribunal. He was also being
allocated the outstation cases. He was maintaining a car as well. In such
circumstances, the prospect of future increase in the income at a much faster
pace cannot be ruled out. In order to assess the loss of income , the Tribunal
is required to adopt a certain method. In the Financial Year 2011-12, the
appellant submitted his Income Tax Return on 24.07.2014 (after the
accident), the Court has refused to rely upon the same. It has been pointed
out that major part of the income of the appellant was from the fees received
4 of 6
FAO-15887-2018 (O&M) -5-
from the Central Government. No doubt, the Income Tax Return was filed
subsequent to the accident, however, it cannot be overlooked only on that
account, particularly, when the law required the filing of the Income Tax
Return subsequently. It is appropriate to note that in the Financial Year
2010-11, he had shown his income as Rs.2,20,000/- and in Financial Year
2011-12, he showed that his gross total income was Rs.3,29,066/-. Thus,
assessing the income on the basis of the Financial Year 2011-12, the
appellant was having a gross income of Rs.27,500/- per month. As per the
disability certificate, the appellant has suffered 50% permanent disability in
relation to his both ears and the left eye. For the whole body, such
assessment can be taken as 1/3rd. Therefore, the per month loss of the
income would be Rs.9,170/-. Such loss will have to be increased on account
of increase in the income due to future prospects as laid down in the
judgment passed by the Five Judge Bench in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 SCC Online SC 1270.
The appellant was barely 33 years old at the time of accident. He was at his
prime age. Therefore, the increase in the future prospects shall be 40%.
After adding the aforesaid amount in monthly loss, the per month loss
comes to Rs.12,838/-. After applying the multiplier of 12, the yearly loss
comes to Rs.1,54,056/-. Keeping in view the age of the appellant, the
appropriate multiplier would be 16. Hence, the total amount comes to
Rs.24,64,896/-.
9. As regards engagement of the driver, it may be noted here that
no evidence in this regard has been produced. As regards the loss of
amenities, the same is assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-. Consequently, the
compensation assessed by the Tribunal shall stand increased by
Rs.25,64,896/- which shall be payable to the appellant along with interest @
5 of 6
FAO-15887-2018 (O&M) -6-
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization apart from what was assessed by the Tribunal.
10. With all these observations, the appeal stands allowed.
11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
04th July, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
