Punjab-Haryana High Court
Samay Singh vs Janu And Ors on 25 January, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:010878
458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-1831-2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
Samay Singh ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Janu & Ors. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Tushar Gera, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate for
Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant
against the award dated 20.08.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby an
amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant-
appellant.
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by
the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for
the sake of brevity.
3. In the present case the Tribunal had awarded the following
compensation :
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:010878
FAO-1831-2009 (O&M) -2-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly income Rs.2,500/-
2 Annual income [Rs.2,500 x 12] =Rs.30,000/-
3 Loss of his earning capacity Rs.12,000/-
4 Multiplier of 15 [Rs.12,000 x 15] = Rs.1,80,000/-
5 Medical Bills Rs.45,000/-
6 Loss of income during treatment Rs.10,000/-
7 Pain and suffering; special diet; Rs.35,000/-
and attendant charges
9 Total Compensation Rs.2,70,000/-
Interest 7.5% per annum
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that
the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the injured claimant-
appellant as Rs.2,500/- per month as the minimum wage prevailing at the
relevant time was Rs.2,600/- per month. The learned counsel has, however,
candidly admitted that multiplier of 15 has wrongly been applied, whereas
the same ought to have been 13. It is further the contention of the learned
counsel that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects. The
learned counsel would further contend that the amount awarded towards
pain and suffering; special diet; and attendant charges is also on the lower
side.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been
awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of
any enhancement.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:010878
FAO-1831-2009 (O&M) -3-
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the present case the claimant-appellant, who was 50 years of
age, was working as a vendor and due to the accident his right leg was
amputated. The bodily disability assessed by the Tribunal is 40%. Keeping
in view the fact that the claimant-appellant in the present case was working
as a vendor and his right leg had been amputated, the functional disability
also ought to have been assessed as 80%. The income of the claimant-
appellant has wrongly been assessed as Rs.2,500/- per month inasmuch as
the minimum wage for an unskilled worker at the relevant point of time was
Rs.2,600/- month, hence, the income of the claimant-appellant is assessed as
Rs.2,600/- per month. The Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15,
whereas multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied in the present case. No
amount has been awarded towards future prospects. The Supreme Court in
the case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [2020 (4) RCR
(Civil) 404] has held as under :
"12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this court,
the High Court clearly erred in holding that
compensation for loss of future prospects could not be
awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on
a determination of the income at the time of accident),
the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of
future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi
principle).
13. The factual narrative discloses that the appellant, a
20-year-old data entry operator (who had studied up to
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:010878
FAO-1831-2009 (O&M) -4-
12th standard) incurred permanent disability, i.e. loss of
his right hand (which was amputated). The disability was
assessed to be 89%. However, the tribunal and the High
Court re-assessed the disability to be only 45%, on the
assumption that the assessment for compensation was to
be on a different basis, as the injury entailed loss of only
one arm. This approach, in the opinion of this court, is
completely mechanical and entirely ignores realities.
Whilst it is true that assessment of injury of one limb or
to one part may not entail permanent injury to the whole
body, the inquiry which the court has to conduct is the
resultant loss which the injury entails to the earning or
income generating capacity of the claimant. Thus, loss of
one leg to someone carrying on a vocation such as
driving or something that entails walking or constant
mobility, results in severe income generating impairment
or its extinguishment altogether. Likewise, for one
involved in a job like a carpenter or hairdresser, or
machinist, and an experienced one at that, loss of an
arm, (more so a functional arm) leads to near extinction
of income generation. If the age of the victim is beyond
40, the scope of rehabilitation too diminishes. These
individual factors are of crucial importance which are to
be borne in mind while determining the extent of
permanent disablement, for the purpose of assessment of
loss of earning capacity."
8. In the present case, the Tribunal ought to have made an addition
of 25% towards future prospects keeping in view the age of the claimant-
appellant. It has also come in the evidence that the claimant-appellant
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:010878
FAO-1831-2009 (O&M) -5-
remained bedridden for a period of four months. Keeping in view the fact
that the minimum wage for an unskilled worker was Rs.2,600/- and the
claimant-appellant would have had to employ two workers as attendants
during the period of four months, hence, an amount of Rs.20,800/-
(Rs.2,600x2x4) is awarded towards attendant charges. The amount of
Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical bills is also
maintained. Further, the amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded towards pain and
suffering and special diet is also on the lower side and hence the amounts of
Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- are awarded towards pain and suffering and
special diet, respectively. An amount of Rs.30,000/- is also awarded towards
transportation charges and further an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded
under the head 'loss of amenities'. Accordingly, the reworked compensation
is as under :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly income Rs.2,600/-
2 Annual Income of the appellant as [Rs.2,080x12] = Rs.24,960/-
per 80% functional disability
3 Future prospects @ 25% [Rs.24,960+6240] = Rs.31,200/-
4 Multiplier of 13 [Rs.31,200x13] = Rs.4,05,600/-
5 Special Diet Rs.15,000/-
6 Medical Bills Rs.45,000/-
7 Transporation charges Rs.30,000/-
8 Pain and suffering Rs.1,25,000/-
9 Loss of amenities Rs.5,00,000/-
10 Attendant Charges Rs.20,800/- (Rs.2,600x2x4)
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:010878
FAO-1831-2009 (O&M) -6-
11 Total Compensation Rs.11,41,400/-
Amount Awarded by the Rs.2,70,000/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.8,71,400/-
9. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
10. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed
and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
25.01.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
