Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nand Lal vs Kanwar Singh And Ors on 13 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:036358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
605-A FAO-6918-2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.03.2024
NAND LAL .... Appellant
VERSUS
KANWAR SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate and
Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sirsa vide award dated 22.04.2011.
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. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Amount towards loss of income Rs.1,80,000/-
90% permanent disability
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,82,858/-
3 Cost of artificial limb Rs.1,20,000/-
4 Mental Agony, Trauma and tension Rs.20,000/-
5 Calcium diet Rs.4,000/-
6 Attendant charges Rs.4,000/-
7 Transportation charges Rs.4,000/-
8 Total Compensation Rs.5,14,858/-
9 Interest 9% per annum
integrity of this judgment/order.
605-A FAO-6918-2011 (O&M) -2-
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has contended that
the claimant-appellant is a retired Head Master and was 70 years of age at
the time of the accident and was hale and hearty. After the accident he
became dependent upon the others. It is further the contention that the
claimant-appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90% as
per the disability certificate (Ex.PW3/A) and that keeping in view the nature
of injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant, a multiplier method ought to
have been applied and the income of the claimant-appellant ought to have
been assessed. 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 claimant-appellant remained admitted in
hospital from 04.02.2009 to 28.02.2009 and from 04.03.2009 to 30.03.2009
and hence the amount awarded towards special diet, attendant charges and
transportation charges is also on the lower side. It is further the contention
that the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded towards cost of artificial limb is
also on the lower side. In support of his contentions he has relied upon
judgments in the cases of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.
[2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 404] and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Rohit Kumar & Ors. [2017 (7) AD (Delhi) 602].
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.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
integrity of this judgment/order.
605-A FAO-6918-2011 (O&M) -3-
7. In the present case admittedly the claimant-appellant has
suffered multiple grievous injuries and his right leg was amputated. Though
the Tribunal while relying upon the disability certificate (Ex.PW3/A)
assessed the disability of the claimant-appellant as 90%, however, functional
disability of the claimant-appellant has not been assessed. In view thereof,
this Court deems it fit to assess the functional disability as 90%.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav
(supra) 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
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
integrity of this judgment/order.
605-A FAO-6918-2011 (O&M) -4-
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."
9. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav
(supra), a multiplier method is applied in the present case keeping in view
the functional disability suffered by the claimant-appellant. The accident had
taken place on 04.02.2009 and the minimum wage for an unskilled worker at
integrity of this judgment/order.
605-A FAO-6918-2011 (O&M) -5-
the relevant point of time was Rs.4,100/- per month, hence, the income of
the claimant-appellant is assessed as Rs.4,100/- per month. A multiplier of
'5' would be applicable as per the age of the claimant-appellant who was 70
years of age at the time of the accident. The claimant-appellant would not be
entitled to future prospects keeping in view the age of the deceased.
Further, the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded towards costs of artificial limb
is certainly on the lower side. The prosthetic limb was fixed in the year 2009
and would certainly require to be changed in future. Taking a cue from the
judgment in the case of Rohit Kumar (supra) wherein an amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- was awarded towards cost of the artificial limb in the year
2017, I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards
costs of the artificial limb and its future maintenance. It has come on the
record that the claimant-appellant remained admitted in hospital for 52 days
i.e. from 04.02.2009 to 28.02.2009 and from 04.03.2009 to 30.03.2009 and
would have required an attendant for the said period. Attendant charges are
also awarded for 52 days @ Rs.4,100/- per month, which was the minimum
wage at the relevant time, which comes to Rs.7,106/-. The amount of
Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head special diet is on the
lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The amount of
Rs.20,000/- awarded under the head pain and suffering is on the lower side
and the same is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.4,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation charges is enhanced to
Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
integrity of this judgment/order.
605-A FAO-6918-2011 (O&M) -6-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.4,100/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.4,100 x 12] = Rs.49,200/-
3 Loss of annual Income on account Rs.44,280/-
of 90% permanent disability
4 Loss of income after applying [Rs.44,280/- x 5] =
multiplier '5' Rs.2,21,400/-
5 Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
6 Special Diet Rs.25,000/-
7 Attendant charges Rs.7,106/-
8 Medical expenses Rs.1,82,858/-
9 Transportation Rs.30,000/-
10 Costs of Artificial limb and its Rs.10,00,000/-
maintenance in future
11 Total Compensation Rs.16,66,364/-
10. 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.
11. 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.
13.03.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this judgment/order.
