Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Singh vs Lakhpat & Ors on 20 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:040541
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-5049-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.03.2024
Charan Singh .... Appellant
VERSUS
Lakhpat & Ors .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, 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, Rewari vide award dated 09.04.2013.
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 Compensation on account of Rs.60,000/-
permanent partial disablement to
the extent of 30%
2 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:040541
FAO-5049-2013 (O&M) -2-
3 Medical Expenses Rs.4,08,768/-
4 Special diet/attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
5 Transportation charges Rs.5,000/-
6 Total Compensation Rs.4,98,768/-
7 Interest 9% per annum
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has contended that
the claimant-appellant was 29 years of age at the time of the accident and
due to the accident which took place on 19.07.2010 he remained admitted in
hospital from 19.07.2010 to 28.07.2010 where he was operated upon. The
learned counsel would further contend that the claimant-appellant sustained
more than 10 fractures and his right eye was visually damaged and that as
per the disability certificate (Ex.P2) the claimant-appellant has suffered
disability to the extent of 30%. The learned counsel would further contend
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 notionally and the amount
also ought to have been awarded towards future prospects. The learned
counsel would further contend that the claimant-appellant remained admitted
in hospital from 19.07.2010 to 28.07.2010 and hence the amount awarded
towards pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and transportation
charges is also on the lower side. In support of his contentions he has relied
upon judgment in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.
[2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 404].
5. Per contra the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:040541
FAO-5049-2013 (O&M) -3
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.
7. In the present case admittedly the claimant-appellant has
suffered multiple fractures/injuries and his right eye was visually damaged.
As per the disability certificate (Ex.P2) the Tribunal has assessed the
disability of the claimant-appellant to the extent of 30%. Keeping in view
the disability suffered by the claimant-appellant, this Court deems it fit to
assess his functional disability to the extent of 30%.
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
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:040541
FAO-5049-2013 (O&M) -4-
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."
9. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav
(supra) and keeping in view the functional disability of the claimant-
appellant, a multiplier method is applied in the present case. Further, the
income of the claimant-appellant is assessed as per the minimum wage
prevalent at the time of the accident. The accident had taken place on
19.07.2010 and the minimum wage for a skilled worker was Rs.4,998/- per
month, hence, the income of the claimant-appellant is assessed as Rs.4,998/-
per month. Keeping in view the age of the claimant-appellant being 29 years,
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:040541
FAO-5049-2013 (O&M) -5-
a multiplier of '17' would be applicable and he would also be entitled to an
addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects.
10. Admittedly, the claimant-appellant remained under treatment in
hospital for 11 days w.e.f. 19.07.2010 to 28.07.2010 and during such period,
he would have required an attendant and thus he would also be entitled to
compensation in lieu of attendant charges for 11 days according to the above
minimum wage, which comes to Rs.1,832/-. The amount of Rs.5,000/-
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 also on the lower side and the same is
enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal towards transportation charges is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
Medical expenses of Rs.4,08,768/- awarded by the Tribunal are maintained.
Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.4,998/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.4,998 x 12] = Rs.59,976/-
3 Loss of annual Income on Rs.17,993/-
account of 30% disability
4 Loss of income after applying [Rs.17,993 x 17] = Rs.3,05,881/-
multiplier '17'
5 Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
6 Special Diet Rs.25,000/-
7 Attendant charges Rs.1,832/-
8 Medical expenses Rs.4,08,768/-
9 Transportation charges Rs.30,000/-
10 Total Compensation Rs.9,71,481/-
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:040541
FAO-5049-2013 (O&M) -6-
11. 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.
12. 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.
20.03.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
