Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjit Singh vs Karam Singh & Anr on 21 September, 2022
FAO-4476-2014 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4476-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.09.2022
Gurjit Singh ........ Appellant
Versus
Karam Singh and another ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:- Mr.Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Respondent No.1 proceeded ex-parte
vide order dated 02.09.2019.
Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
The present appeal lays challenge to the award dated
27.01.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.A.S.
Nagar, Mohali (in brevity, 'the Tribunal'), whereby compensation of
Rs.1,96,475/- was awarded to the appellant/claimant along with interest @
6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization.
Brief facts of this case are that on 30.08.2010 at about 6.00 pm,
claimant/ appellant was going from his Village Chhat to Zirakpur on his
motorcycle along with on Jasbir Singh as pillion rider. When they were
little short from AKM Palace-Zirakpur, a car bearing registration No.DL-
2CY-0035 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') being driven by
respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite
side and hit the motorcycle. As a result thereof, claimant/ appellant as
well as pillion rider Jasbir Singh fell down on the road and received
serious injuries including fracture of right shaft of femur (thigh bone) &
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-4476-2014 (O&M)
fracture of ankle. Respondent No.1 happens to be the Driver/ owner of the
offending vehicle; whereas respondent No.2 its insurer.
After going through the claim petition and evaluating the
evidence led by both the parties, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that
the accident occurred due to the negligent and rash driving of respondent
No.1. In view of the nature of injuries and the evidence that the appellant
became permanent disabled to the extent of 29%, learned Tribunal
considered the functional disability at 10% and after assessing the income
of claimant/ appellant to be Rs.5000/- per month, awarded compensation
in the following manner:-
Sr.No. Nature Amount in
Rupees
1. Loss of Future income Rs.1,53,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.18,475/-
3. Pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/-
4. Diet Rs.5000/-
5. Attendant Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL: Rs.1,96,475/-
With regard to the liabilities, learned Tribunal held that
respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. Driver/ owner of the offending vehicle and
respondent No.3 i.e. insurer, respectively, are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation amount. However, since respondent No.1 has not
been holding valid driving licence, the first liability was considered to be
that of respondent No.2; but it was given right to recover the awarded
amount of compensation from respondent No.1.
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-4476-2014 (O&M)
Being aggrieved against the award dated 27.01.2014, the
present appeal has been filed by the claimant/ appellant for enhancement
of the compensation.
Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has contended that
considering the nature of injuries and the avocation of the injured, the
compensation awarded under the head of "loss of future income" is
extremely on the lower side and as the claimant/ appellant was working as
a labourer in Dubai and was earning Rs.15000/- p.m., loss of future income
should have been awarded accordingly. He further contends that though as
per the disability certificate, the claimant/ appellant has suffered 29%
permanent disability, however, due to the injuries on his right leg, he cannot
bend his knees and has been facing huge difficulty in standing or sitting
and therefore, his functional disability should have been considered at least
50%. He further contended that no compensation has been awarded due to
"loss of income during treatment" and the compensation awarded under
other ancillary heads is also very meager.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
argued that in the absence of any documentary proof or any testimony that
the claimant/ appellant was working as a labourer in Dubai, the income
assessed by the learned Tribunal is sufficient. He further contends that the
age of the claimant/ appellant was 26 years and learned Tribunal
considered him to be a labourer/ self employed, future prospects should
have been awarded @ 40%, instead of 50%, and therefore, compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal should be reduced accordingly.
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-4476-2014 (O&M)
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
paper-book as well as gone through the records of the case. So far as the
income of the claimant/ appellant is concerned, learned Tribunal has rightly
held it to be Rs.5000/- per month in the absence of any documentary
evidence or testimony of any independent person to the effect that he was
working in Dubai as a labourer.
However, with regard to the functional disability of the claimant/
appellant, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant
that the same should have been higher than 10% as assessed by learned
Tribunal. Regarding this, I deem it appropriate to refer to the statement
made by PW3-Dr. Ravi Kumar Preenja, Assistant Professor, Department of
Orthopedics, Member Disability Board, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh and
relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder for reference:-
"The patient was found to have suffered 29%
disability. Though the sufficient time has been elapsed
between the date of injury and the date of assessment of
the disability, hence there are no chances for the
improvement of the disability of the patient, hence the
disability is permanent. After the accident the patient was
admitted in GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh, on
30.08.2010, in Emergency and thereafter he was
operated on 01.09.2010, whereby debridement for
compound IIIA femur plus knee wound plus ankle wound
plus closer of wound was done. Open reduction and
internal fixation of the fracture was done and thereafter he
was discharged on 21.9.2010. The disability assessed by
the Medical Board, is a functional disability. I had seem
the medical record of the patient before the assessment
of the disability which shows that the patient for the last
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-4476-2014 (O&M)
three years had not recovered fully from the injuries
sustained by him in the accident therefore because of this
condition he might also not had been able to work for the
above said period, because of the restriction of
movements of joints the patient might also require the
services of physiotherapist. For about six months as per
the record the patient might had confined to bed and
require the services of attendant. The disability is
permanent and functional disability and will affect the
working capacity of the patient........"
As per the disability certificate, claimant/ appellant suffered
permanent disability to the extent of 29% in relation to right lower limb on
account of fractured SOF right side with pain & restriction of movement in
right knee. However, for a person who is working as a labourer, a smooth
movement of the leg is a necessary part of his functions and if there is a
restriction on such movement then it will substantially affect his working
capacity and therefore, functional disability should have been considered to
be more. Though, in para 19 of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal
notices that on account of injuries suffered in accident, claimant would not
be able to do his labour work properly and he will be ignored for contracting
labour activities, yet assessed the functional disability to an extremely lower
side i.e. 10% only. It is settled law that in such cases the effect of
permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured has to be
assessed by the Tribunal considering the functional disability, the nature of
work he was doing prior to the accident as well the extent of difficulty, he
will face in doing the same work or any other work, later in life. In this
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-4476-2014 (O&M)
regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sandeep Khanduja Vs. Atul Dande, (2017) 3 SCC 351.
Thus, considering the nature of injuries coupled with two
operations resulting into the permanent restriction of movement of right
knee, the nature of work being carried out by the claimant as well as based
on the evidence available on record, in particular, the statement of the
PW3- Doctor and the law applicable, I am of the view that the permanent
functional disability should not have been assessed less than 33%.
As contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and in
view of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others,
2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, the future prospects are awarded @ 40% of the
annual income in place of 50%.
So far as the compensation under the head of 'loss of income
during treatment' and 'attendant charges' are concerned, I am in
agreement with the arguments made by learned counsel for the claimant/
appellant. In his unrebutted testimony, Dr.Ravi Kumar Preenja (PW3) has
categorically averred that "for about six months as per the record the
patient might had confined to bed and require the services of attendant."
Therefore, the 'attendant charges' as well as the 'loss of income during
treatment' should have been considered for a period of six months at least.
Further, it has also been averred in the cross-examination of PW3 that
"patient might also require the services of physiotherapist", therefore, some
compensation should have also been awarded under this head.
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-4476-2014 (O&M)
Learned Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation on
account of other heads like 'conveyance charges', and 'Loss of amenities
and enjoyment of life'.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, considering the
nature of injuries, permanent functional disability and the evidence of
Doctor, the appellant is entitled for following enhanced compensation, as
detailed in the table given hereunder:-
Sr.No. Nature Amount in
Rupees
1. Annual Income of deceased (Rs.5000x 12) Rs.60,000/-
2. Add 40% of Future prospects Rs.24,000/-
3. Total Income (Rs.60,000/- + Rs.24,000/-) Rs.84,000/-
4. Multiplier of 17 as per age of 27 years Rs.14,28,000/-
(Rs.84,000/- X 17)
5. Loss of future earning capacity/ income Rs.4,71,000/-
[33% (percentage disability) of total income]
6. Medical Expenses Rs.18,475/-
7. Pain and sufferings and mental agony Rs.10,000/-
8. Disability to the extent of 33% Rs.33,000/-
9. Compensation for special diet (Rs.5000/-), Rs.40,000/-
attendant (Rs.5000 x 6 = Rs.30,000) and
conveyance charges (Rs.5000/-)
10. Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Rs.15,000/-
11. Loss of income during treatment (Rs.5000/- Rs.30,000/-
x 6 = Rs.30,000/-)
12. Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.6,09,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,96,475 /-
Enhanced Amount Rs.4,12,525/-
The grant of interest @ 6% per annum is not just in view of the
facts and circumstances of the present case; rather as per the observations
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-4476-2014 (O&M)
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513,
which were 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 annum on the amount of compensation
awarded to the claimant from the date of institution of claim petition till its
realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation
already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced
compensation.
Consequently, the present appeal is disposed off in the above
terms.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
September 21, 2022 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
sanjay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
