Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh vs Satgur Singh & Ors on 25 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(i) FAO-10603-2014 (O&M)
Mandeep Singh
...Appellant
VERSUS
Satgur Singh and others
...Respondents
(ii) FAO-1026-2019 (O&M)
Chhattar Singh
...Appellant
VERSUS
New India Insurance Company Ltd. and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision: April 25, 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.Gaurav Pathak, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO-10603-2014).
Mr.Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO-1026-2019) and
for respondent No.2 (in FAO-10603-2014).
Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate
for respondent-insurance company.
Mr.Shubhashish Kukreti, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5 (in FAO-1026-2019).
Mr.Mohit Sadana, Advocate
for respondent No.6 (in FAO-1026-2019).
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
These two appeals have been filed to challenge the Award
1 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -2-
dated 14.05.2014 and order dated 10.09.2018.
At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that aforesaid both
the appeals have arisen from the same accident, which had taken place on
07.04.2013.
As per the version of the claimants, as put forth, in their
respective claim petitions is that on 07.04.2013, at about 6.00 a.m.,
Mandeep Singh along with his brother-in-law (Sanddu), namely Amarjit
Singh, was going to Chandigarh side from the side of Jhansla, on
motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-65G-0336. Jaspal Singh, was also
going to Chandigarh from the side of Jhansla and was behind the ill-fated
motorcycle. The ill-fated motorcycle was being driven by Mandeep Singh,
whereas, Amarjit Singh was pillion rider of the same. When they reached
the turn of village Jangpura, then a truck bearing registration No.PB-13W-
9958, being driven by respondent-Satgur Singh, rashly, negligently and
with high speed, came from Rajpura side. After overtaking the vehicle of
above-said Jaspal, respondent-Satgur Singh, struck his truck against Indica
car bearing registration No.HR-24L-0460, coming from the opposite side
and thereafter, respondent-Satgur Singh, suddenly, turned his truck on left
side, as a result thereof, the truck, struck into the ill-fated motorcycle, upon
which, both Mandeep Singh and Amarjit Singh, occupants of the
motorcycle, fell down on the road and they had sustained grievous injuries.
In the respective claim petitions, it is the categoric claim that
the accident in question had taken place, on account of rash and negligent
driving of the truck bearing registration No.PB-13W-9958, driven by
2 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -3-
respondent-Satgur Singh. With the help of passer-by, Jaspal Singh, who was
following the ill-fated motorcycle, took both the injured to Gian Sagar
Hospital, from where, they were referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Amarjit
Singh, occupant of the motorcycle, had succumbed to the injuries sustained,
in the accident in question, whereas, injured Mandeep Singh, remained
admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, from 07.04.2013 to 24.04.2013.
Claim petition No.MACT-02769-2013 was filed by injured
Mandeep Singh, before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar,
whereas, claim petition No.MACT-638-2013 was filed by LRs of deceased
Amarjit Singh, before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala.
After conducting of the requisite proceedings, respective
Awards were passed.
FAO-10603-2014 has been filed by appellant-claimant
Mandeep Singh, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation,
granted by learned Tribunal.
FAO-1129-2015 was filed by The New India Assurance
Company Ltd., thereby, assailing the Award dated 04.09.2014 passed by
learned MACT, vide which, compensation to the extent of Rs.40,50,000/-
was granted to the claimants, vis-a-vis, death of Amarjit Singh and the
insurance company, which was respondent No.3, before the Tribunal, was
made liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. At this
juncture, it is pertinent to mention that this liability was so fastened upon
the insurance company, even though, it was concluded by learned Tribunal
that the truck bearing registration No.PB-13W-9958, was not having valid
3 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -4-
route permit.
Feeling aggrieved, the insurance company had filed FAO-
1129-2015, relating to the compensation granted, on account of death of
Amarjit Singh, in a motor vehicular accident. However, this Court had made
the following observations, in the order dated 29.05.2018, as herein given:-
"XXXX XX XX XXXX
Perusal of findings of the Tribunal would reveal that the
entire approach adopted by the Tribunal in first placing onus
of additional issue upon the claimants and thereafter deciding
the said issue against the insurance company is faulty, thus,
findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are liable to
be set aside and the matter needs to be remitted to the Tribunal
for adjudication afresh on the additional issue to be framed in
the following terms:-
Whether truck bearing No.PB-13W-9958 was being
plied without a permit on 07.04.2013?OPR-3.
The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal
on 13.07.2018. They shall be at liberty to adduce additional
evidence for adjudication of the aforesaid issue afresh. The
Tribunal is directed to complete the exercise within a period of
two months from the parties putting in appearance.
Disposed of accordingly.
It is clarified that the cross objections filed by the
claimants shall be decided independently."
Thus, FAO-1129-2015 was disposed of and it was also
clarified that the cross-objections, filed by the claimants, shall be decided
independently. The cross-objections were kept pending, but thereafter, the
cross-objections were also dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated
29.05.2019.
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, additional issue, so framed,
4 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -5-
by learned Tribunal, reads as herein given:-
"Whether truck bearing No.PB-13W-9958 was being plied
without a permit on 07.04.2013?OPR-3."
On this additional issue, on the statement suffered by learned
counsel for the insurance company, which was impleaded as respondent
No.3, to the effect that 'in view of the reply to the application for
production of documents dated 28.3.2013 and in view of the statement
made by Sh.Sanjay Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents No.1
and 2 dated 09.07.2014, he does not further want to lead any evidence and
closed the evidence.' However, to rebut the aforesaid stand of the insurance
company, respondents No.1 and 2, who are driver and owner, had tendered
into evidence, the copy of verification certificate, with regard to alleged
permit as Mark R1 and closed the evidence.
After hearing counsel for the parties, vide impugned order
dated 10.09.2018, learned Tribunal, reached the conclusion that respondents
No.1 and 2 (before the Tribunal) have failed to produce any legal and valid
permit and consequently, respondent No.3-insurance company, has right of
recovery against respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner). Accordingly,
the additional issue, so framed, was decided in favour of the insurance
company.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2018, appellant-
owner of the offending truck bearing registration No.PB-13W-9958, has
filed FAO-1026-2019.
During the course of arguments on the said appeal, it has been
5 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -6-
fairly conceded by learned counsel for the insurance company that the
verification report, which is Mark R1, has been so relied upon, in the other
claim petition filed by Mandeep Singh and has been proved on record as
Ex.R3. Perusal of the same verifies about the existence of the route permit
of the truck in question. In the light of the same and also considering
document Mark R1, having come on record, during the course of evidence
recorded on the additional issue, valid permit is established to be there. It is
pertinent to mention that strict rules of evidence, do not apply in motor
accident claims, as it is a summary proceeding. The Motor Vehicle Act is
benevolent piece of legislation. Precisely, on this account, even though,
statement had earlier been made by learned counsel for driver and owner,
about not being in possession of the any document, more specifically of the
route permit, but however, later on, verification report, as such, coming on
record, in pursuance of framing of additional issue, copy whereof is Mark
R1, is sufficient to be taken into consideration. Even though, no witness, as
such, has been examined to prove the said verification report, but however,
still it can be taken into consideration, more particularly, when in the other
claim petition, arising from the same accident, it has been duly proved as
Ex.R3. Considering the same, it stands established that the truck in
question, was having valid route permit, as on the date of accident and such
being the position, the insurance company, as such, is not entitled to
recovery rights, as held vide impugned order dated 10.09.2018.
In view of the aforesaid terms, FAO-1026-2019, is hereby
allowed and the impugned order, vis-a-vis, recovery rights is set aside and
6 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -7-
the insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation amount, as so
observed by learned Tribunal, vide Award dated 04.09.2014.
Now, coming to FAO-10603-2014, so filed by appellant-
claimant Mandeep Singh.
So far as, the fact of accident and imputation of rashness and
negligence is concerned, as concluded by learned Tribunal, relating to the
injury case of Mandeep Singh, no appeal, has been filed by the persons, so
made liable
On appraisal of the evidence adduced, learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.13,91,858/-,
to appellant-claimant, on account of injuries sustained by him, in the
accident in question.
Being dissatisfied with the compensation, so granted, the
appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal for seeking enhancement of
the compensation.
In this backdrop, at the very outset, learned counsel for the
appellant-claimant has assiduously submitted that appellant-claimant had
suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85%, as on account of injuries
sustained in accident in question, his right leg above knee and right arm
below elbow, were amputated, which fact stands amply established from the
evidence, so adduced. Thus, it is submitted that he had become totally
invalid. Learned Tribunal, considering the evidence adduced by the
appellant-claimant, as such, had not taken into consideration, the impact of
permanent disability, upon the life of the appellant-claimant, not only to his
7 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -8-
income generating capacity but also about non-quantifiable implications, on
his life.
Besides the same, learned counsel for the appellant assiduously
submitted that looking at the nature of the injuries sustained by the
appellant, additional medical exigencies are necessitated and expenses are
to be incurred for regular medical treatment in future. It is submitted that
even there is need of expenditure to be incurred, on account of arrangement
of prosthetic limbs, during his lifetime, which has also not been taken care
of. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant has made a prayer for extensive
enhancement of the amount, so awarded by learned Tribunal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company
has refuted the claim of the appellant-claimant, while asserting that
sufficient amount of compensation has been granted by learned Tribunal,
taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts, as now pleaded. Thus, he
submits that the appeal sans merit and deserves to be dismissed.
In Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the Supreme Court held that the 'just'
compensation is adequate compensation and the Award must be just that-
'no less and no more'. The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel twist of
fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant, but it is for seeking
appropriate recompense, to negotiate with the unforeseeable and the
fortuitous twists, in his impaired life. Therefore, while the money awarded
by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim (who
is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers the unease of being a
8 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -9-
burden on others), the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the
self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding 'just compensation'.
A three Judges' bench in Jagdish Vs. Mohan and others, 2018
(4) SCC 571, while considering the enhancement of compensation awarded,
vis-a-vis, injuries suffered by the victim, a reference has been made to the
decision rendered in Laxman vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., 2012 ACJ 191 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as
under:-
"(12) The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the
victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary
disability, then efforts should always be made to award
adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and
treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused
due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead
normal life and enjoy amenities, which we would have enjoyed
but for disability caused due to the accident."
Furthermore, while making reference to various case law, it
held that the compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss
of future earnings and the first head relates to the impairment of a person's
capacity, while the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss
of enjoyment of life by the person himself.
Thus, considering the same, if the victim of the accident suffers
permanent disability, then efforts should also be made to award
compensation, not only for the physical frame and treatment, but also for the
loss of earnings and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities,
which he would have enjoyed, but for the disability caused, due to the
accident. In Jagdish's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
9 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -10-
considering the case of a carpenter, who had sustained injuries and lost both
his hands. Therein, considering the serious disability, suffered by him, on
account of loss of use of both of this hands, it was observed by the Court, as
herein given:-
"........For a person engaged in manual activities, it requires no
stretch of imagination to understand that loss of hands is a
complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing, at least in
the facts of this case, can restore lost hands. But the measure
of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of law to
restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of
compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to
question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it
must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss
and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not
law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute
entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must
shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an
assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity."
Considering the facts of the case, the disability, which was
worked upon as '90%', was taken to be total disability by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and thereupon, enhancement was made.
Now, reverting to the case in hand. It is specific claim of the
appellant-claimant Mandeep Singh that he had sustained serious injuries in
the accident in question. It is his claim that he remained admitted in PGI,
Chandigarh, for treatment from 07.04.2013 to 24.04.2013 and that his right
leg above knee and right arm below elbow were amputated. To so
substantiate, the appellant-claimant has stepped into witness box as CW-1
and in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, he has categorically, deposed about the
same.
Even, eye witness CW-2 Jaspal Singh, has so deposed in his
10 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -11-
affidavit. Besides the same, disability certificate of the appellant-claimant
has been proved as Ex.C2. The record, relating to the same, was brought by
CW-3 Varinder Pal, Junior Assistant, Civil Hospital, Ropar, whereas,
Dr.Navtej Pal Singh, who examined the injured-claimant, being Ortho
specialist and made the assessment of disability, has also stepped into
witness box as CW-5 and he has also stated that disability was assessed as
permanent and 85%. The disability certificate has again been proved as
Ex.CW5/A.
CW-4 Dr.Sandeep Patel, Senior Resident, PGI, Chandigarh,
who had brought the treatment record of Mandeep Singh, has also deposed
about Mandeep Singh to have remained admitted in PGI from 07.04.2013 to
24.04.2013 and that he was operated on 07.04.2013. He also deposed
amputation (above knee) of right lower limb and amputation (below
elbow) for right upper limb was carried out. He proved the discharge and
follow up card as Ex.C3. In cross-examination, he has stated that the
injured was operated three times.
From the aforesaid evidence, it stands established that there
was amputation of right lower limb above knee and of right upper limb
below elbow. Even though, it is categoric claim of the appellant-claimant
that he was working as driver with Bharat Petroleum and was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month, but however, it has been rightly concluded by
learned Tribunal that his employment with Bharat Petroleum, as such, does
not stand established. However, fact remains that it is categoric claim of the
appellant-claimant that he was working as driver, which, he has also stated
11 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -12-
in his affidavit and this fact, as such, has not been rebutted.
In view of the oral evidence, coming on record, Mandeep Singh
is established to be a skilled worker, being driver. However, it does not
stand established that he was a truck driver and as such, cannot be taken to
be highly skilled. In the given circumstances, considering the appellant-
claimant, to be skilled worker (being driver) and minimum wages, as
existing on the date of accident, his earnings are taken to be Rs.7372/- per
month, instead of Rs.6000/- as taken by learned Tribunal. Considering it to
be so, the compensation, so worked upon, by learned Tribunal, needs re-
appraisal.
On account of amputation of his right leg above knee and
right arm below elbow, which fact, as observed aforesaid, stands amply
established, the appellant-claimant has become totally invalid, to carry out
the avocation, so followed by him. Besides the same, considering him to be
falling in the age group of 26-30 years, his youthful dreams, pertaining to
his growth in his own field of work and future hopes were snuffed to a great
extent by this accident.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, which the appellant-
claimant had to face, on account of injuries sustained in the accident, the
attempt should always be made to provide a realistic recompense, having
regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of
disability and its impact, including the income generating capacity of the
claimant and not only that, even the impact of the accident on his life, on
account of his physical disability. The Courts should be mindful of the fact
12 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -13-
that though, the physical disability may be on a lesser count but the
functional disability, on account of injury sustained, can always be on
higher side.
Considering the same and also considering the fact of the
appellant-claimant, being driver, he was a skilled worker. At the prevalent
time, the minimum wages of skilled worker were Rs.7372/-, as already
observed aforesaid. As such, considering the appellant-claimant to have
become 100% invalid, as he is not able to carry on with his avocation and
could not indulge in any labour activity also, his disability is taken as 100%.
On this account, there is loss of future earnings also, on which account,
addition of 40% ought to be made, on account of future prospects, as per
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017
(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, which comes to be Rs.2948.8/-, which is rounded off
as Rs.2949/-. Considering the same, loss of income comes to be Rs.7372-
2949=Rs.10,321/- per month and annual comes to be
Rs.10321x12=Rs.1,23,852/-.
Considering the appellant-claimant to be falling in the age
group of 26-30 years, the suitable multiplier of '17' is applicable, as per
Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR
(Civil) 77. Thus, by applying the suitable multiplier, the loss of income
comes to be Rs.123852x17=Rs.21,05,484/-.
In addition to the same, on account of the expenditure incurred
on his treatment, as per the bills so proved, learned Tribunal had rightly
granted an amount of Rs.1,06,458/-, on account of 'medical expenses'.
13 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -14-
However, looking at the kind of injuries sustained by the appellant-
claimant, the amount, on the count of 'pain and suffering' as granted by
learned Tribunal to be Rs.75,000/-, stands enhanced to Rs.1 lakh.
However, it is pertinent to mention that for some period of
time, after the accident, the appellant-claimant must have been looked after
by a by-stander or attendant. Though, learned counsel for the insurance
company has submitted that no material is produced by the appellant qua
actual expenses, so incurred upon the services of attendant and it is also
argued that no further claim is merited under this head, but however, this
submission is not tenable. Considering the extent of disability so suffered,
besides family members, the appellant ought to be having one attendant to
look after him, as there was need for assisted living. Thus, on count of
'attendant charges', a sum of Rs.1 lakh is granted.
It is quite obvious that the appellant must have been put to
nutritious diet also, for good extent of time, after the accident. Considering
the kind of injuries sustained by him, on the count of 'special diet' also, the
amount, so granted by learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.
Further, it is pertinent to mention that learned Tribunal had
granted consolidated amount of Rs.1.5 lakh, on the counts of 'future medical
expenses', 'loss of enjoyment of life' as well as 'transportation charges', but
however, said counts, should be bifurcated and considered. It is quite
obvious that the appellant-claimant had remained admitted in hospital and
also, on account of the injuries, so sustained, must be making frequent visits
to the hospital, for follow up treatment. Thus, on the count of
14 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -15-
'transportation charges', the appellant-claimant is separately awarded an
amount of Rs.30,000/-. So far as, 'future medical expenses' are concerned,
it should be taken note of that there is amputation of right leg above knee
and right arm below elbow, and therefore, prosthetic limbs ought to be
required by the appellant.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sabeer @Shabir
Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
2023(1) RCR (Civil) 349, while considering the case of injury sustained in a
motor vehicular accident and the prosthetic limb required, it was observed
that provision has to be made for the purchase and maintenance of the
prosthetic limb. Considering the age of the injured, provision for three
prosthetic limbs, in his lifetime, was made, apart from the maintenance cost.
Thus, taking guidelines from the aforesaid decision, in the present case,
considering the appellant-claimant to be young man, at the time of accident
and he being required to purchase prosthetic limbs, both for his arm as well
leg and further, considering his future need for the replacement of the
prosthetic limbs and the maintenance thereof, another sum of Rs.5 lakh is
granted.
Accordingly, the appellant-claimant is held entitled for
compensation as under:-
Permanent disability : Rs.21,05/484/-
Medical bills : Rs.1,06,458/-
Pain & suffering : Rs.1,00,000/-
Attendant charges : Rs.1,00,000/-
Diet and Nutrition : Rs.50,000/-
Transportation charges : Rs.30,000/-
15 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
2023:PHHC:058781
FAO-10603-2014 and connected case -16-
Purchase and maintenance : Rs.5,00,000/-
of prosthetic limb
Total : Rs.29,91,942/-
With the above observations, the present appeal stands
allowed. The impugned Award dated 14.05.2014 stands modified, to the
extent, as indicated aforesaid. Apart from this modification regarding
enhancement of compensation, the interest component, as ordered by
learned Tribunal, shall remain same.
In view of the aforesaid said terms, both the appeals i.e. FAO-
10603-2014 and FAO-1026-2019, stand allowed
April 25, 2023 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058781
16 of 16
