Punjab-Haryana High Court

(O&M) Harjinder Singh Nayyar vs Ashwani Kumar Alias Bhola And Ors on 6 November, 2024

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811




FAO-2884-2007 (O&M)                                                        -1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                 FAO-2884-2007 (O&M)
                                 Date of Decision: 06.11.2024

Harjinder Singh Nayyar                                        ......Appellant

                                 Vs.

Ashwani Kumar alias Bhola and others                          ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:     Mr. Ashwani Kumar Katter, Advocate, for
             Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate
             for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.

             ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

14.11.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar

(for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the

claimant/appellant to the tune of Rs.11,13,818/- along with interest at the

relevant rates of State Bank of India, on account of injuries sustained by the

claimant/appellant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 03.11.2000.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined

to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed

narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for

the sake of brevity.

1 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -2-

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant contends that the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and

deserves to be enhanced. He further contends that the appellant/claimant

was earning Rs.14,065/- at the time of accident. Further contends that the

learned Tribunal had not taken into consideration the House Rent Allowance

and the necessary increases provided from time to time to a Central

Government employee. Further contends that the amount awarded towards

pain & suffering and special diet is also on the lower side. Learned counsel

further points out that there is an arithmetical calculation done by the learned

Tribunal while calculating the total compensation in the award. Therefore,

the present appeal be allowed and the enhanced compensation by awarded to

the appellant as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, however,

vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of

compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted.

He prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant suffered 30%

disability with respect to his vocal cord and 50% of cognition dysfunction

and his mental disability. Therefore, the total permanent disability is taken

to be 80%, which is discernible from the disability certificate (Ex.AW/10/1).

It further reveals from the record that at the time of the accident, the

2 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -3-

appellant was 53 years' old; was employed in Life Corporation of India and

was drawing a salary of Rs.14,065/-, which is evident from his salary

certificate (Ex. AW/39/5). Therefore, after deducting the tax payable, which

is Rs.24,634/-, net annual income of the appellant comes out to be

Rs.1,44,146/-. Thus, the monthly income of the appellant is assessed as

Rs.12,012/- (Rs.1,44,146 / 12). Further, the amount awarded towards pain

and sufferings and special diet is on lower side and moreover, no amount

was awarded towards transportation charges and attendant charges.

Therefore, the award requires indulgence by this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of

compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of

Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases

343, has held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to

3 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -4-

earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).

6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :

Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)

(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity.

To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his

4 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -5-

permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident : Rs. 36,000/-.

b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/-

Illustration 'B' : The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/- .

b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (27000x17): Rs. 4,59,000/-

Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as

5 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -6-

70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-

b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/-

c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18

d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-

[Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)].

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified

the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

on the following aspects:-

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine

multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;

(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;

(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss

of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with

escalation;

(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for

different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed

salary.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional

6 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -7-

heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs.

State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-

"7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined by us:\

(a) the application of multiplier of '17' instead of '18';

The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be '18' along with factoring in the extent of disability.

The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be '18' and not '17'.

(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish (supra) in para 8:

"8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to

7 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -8-

the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:

(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;

(ii) Loss of income including future income;

(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;

(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and

(v) Loss of expectation of life."

[emphasis supplied] The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.

In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under:

"Nature of injury:

(i) compound fracture shaft left humerus

(ii) fracture both bones left forearm

(iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm

(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand

(v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur

(vi) fracture shaft femur

(vii) fracture both bones left leg We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration.

We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must

8 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -9-

also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case.

(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish's case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court.

CONCLUSION

8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled principles, the calculation of compensation by the appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as follows:

                            Heads                          Awarded
               Loss of earning power                     Rs. 9,81,978/-
               (Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
               Future prospects (50 per cent             Rs.4,90,989/-
               addition)
               Medical expenses         including        Rs.18,46,864/-
               transport                 charges,
               nourishment, etc.
               Loss of matrimonial prospects             Rs.5,00,000/-
               Loss of comfort, loss of                  Rs.1,50,000/-
               amenities and mental agony
               Pain and suffering                        Rs.2,00,000/-
                             Total                       Rs.41,69,831/-

The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple

9 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -10-

interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

CONCLUSION

10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award

dated 14.11.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellant-claimant is entitled

to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-

      Sr.                    Heads                           Compensation Awarded
      No.
        1     Monthly Income                        Rs.12,000/- (Rs.12,012/- is
                                                    rounded off to Rs.12,000/-)
        2     Loss of Future prospects (10%)        Rs.1200 (10% of Rs.12000/-)
        3     Annual Income                         Rs.1,58,400/- (Rs.13.200 X 12)

        4     Loss of future earning per annum Rs.1,26,720/-
              (80%)
        5     Multiplier (11)                       Rs.13,93,920/-
        6     Pain and Sufferings                   Rs.2,00,000/-
        7     Special Diet                          Rs.80,000/-
        8     Medical Expenses                      Rs.2,10,226/-
        9     Transportation Charges                Rs.50,000/-
        10    Attendant Charges                     Rs.1,50,000/-
        11    Loss of Amenities of life             Rs.1,00,000/-
              Total Compensation                    Rs.21,84,146/-
              Amount Awarded by the                 Rs.11,58,818/-
              Tribunal
              Enhanced amount                       Rs.10,25,328/-
                                                    (Rounded off to Rs.10,25,000/-)

11. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma

10 of 11

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152811

FAO-2884-2007 (O&M) -11-

2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State

Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the

appellant-claimant is granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced

amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

12. The Insurance Company-respondent No.4 is directed to deposit

the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal

within a period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to