Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Chander vs Amrik Singh And Ors on 8 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -1-
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO
FAO-1021-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 08.11.2024
Ram Chander ....Appellant
VERSUS
Amrik Singh and Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. H.N.Sahu, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Advocate for respondent -Insurance
Insurance Co.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA,
SHARMA J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal')) vide award dated 18.10.2005 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby, the claimant/appellant was
awarded a compensation of Rs.83,400/-
Rs. along with interest @ 6% per annum.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.2003 at about 11.20 am Ram
Channder appellant alighted from a three wheeler in front of the gate of N.D.R.I
Karnal, meanwhile, one motor-cycle
motor cycle bearing registration No.PB
No.PB-11U-6134
6134 being
driven by respondent No.1 Amrik Singh in a rash and negligent manner and
a
without blowing any horn, came from the back side and struck against the
appellant. Due to this accident, appellant Ram Chander received grievous and
multiple injuries on various parts of his body including fr
fracture
acture in the right leg and
toe of right foot.
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -2-
The appellant alleged that the toe of his right foot was cut/amputated
in the accidentt and he remained admitted in the hospital from 01.06.2003 to
15.07.2003. He further alleged that a sum of Rs.50,000/
Rs.50,000/- was spent on his
treatment, medicines and other daily needs and he is still under treatment. It has
been averred that after the accident,
acciden the life of the appellant has been ruined and
crippled and he is unable to walk and sit. It has also been averred that the
appellant had to engage a servant to look after his dairy work aand
d he has been
paying Rs.1500/-
Rs.1500/ per month to him.
3. Upon notice
ce of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied
the factum of accident/compensation.
accident
4. From the pleadings
pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-
No.PB
11U-6134
6134 by Amrik Sigh respondent No.1 causing injuries to
the claimants Ram Chander and Major Singh, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the claimant
claimants Ram Chander and Majerr Singh
are entitled to receive any compensation amount on account of
injuries sustained by them in the accident. IIf so to how much
amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the insured has violated any terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so to what
effect? OPR 3
4. Relief.
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -3-
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
After
record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.83,400
83,400/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum.. Hence the claimant/appellant filed the
present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
6. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant
claimant appellant contends that duee to this
accident the appellant suffered 10%
0% permanent disability. He further contends that
the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and no amount
has been assessed under the Heads pain and suffering, attendant charges, future
prospects, etc. Moreover, amount granted for special diet and transporation charges
is on lower side. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the
amount of compensation be enhanced.
7. Per contra, learned for the respondent
respondent-Insurance Company argues that
the learned Tribunal vide award dated 18.10.2005 has rightly assessed the amount
of compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
case
9. A perusal of the award indicates that the amount off compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and as per statement of PW-3
PW
Dr. Girdhar the disability of the claimant is assessed as 10%. Further no amount
has been awarded under the Heads pain and suffering, future prospects and amount
amo
granted for special diet and transportation charges is on lower side
side, therefore, the
award requires interference by this Court.
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -4-
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
10. 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
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
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 earn or could
have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -5-
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 iiss 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)
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
Non-pecuniary
pecuniary damages (General
(Gener
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 gra
granted
nted 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
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -6-
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 bbasis
asis 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
injured-claimant
claimant or who examined him
subsequently to assess the extent of his 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 diffe
different
rent 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
followi
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -7-
Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and
earning Rs. 3000/-
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/
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
3000/-
is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no
longer drive. His chances of getting any oother
ther 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/
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 : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/
4,59,000/-
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -8-
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 inju
injured
red 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 70%. The calculation of compensation
will be as follows :
a) Minimum annual income
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)].
11. 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
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;
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -9-
(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
self employed or fixed salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
under:-
" Therefore, we think it se
seemly
emly to fix reasonable sums. It
seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional 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 head
headss is an acceptable
principle. But the revisit should not be fact
fact-centric
centric or quantum-
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 bbee 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."
12. 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'
'18';
The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of
age of the appellant as 23 years relying on th
thee judgment in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -10-
2700 (SC).
(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 Ve
Verma
rma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age
group of 15-25
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
o 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 enti
entitled
tled to 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;
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -11-
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal li
life
fe 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
perman
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
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -12-
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 respon
respondent
dent 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. Furthe
Further,
r, it has
been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (sup
(supra)
ra) 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 pri
principles
nciples
with regard to future prospects must 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
Jagdish
case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -13-
dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once
the claim was confined to 9% iin
n 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 Rs.4,90,989/-
cent addition)
Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-
transport charges,
nourishment, etc.
Loss of matrimonial Rs.5,00,000/-
prospects
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 interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.
CONCLUSION
13. 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
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -14-
18.10.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellant
appellant-claimant
claimant is entitled to the
enhanced amount of compensation as per
per the calculations made here
here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1. Income Rs.2200/
Rs.2200/-
2. Future Prospects 40% Rs.880/
Rs.880/- (2200x 40%)
3. Annual Income Rs.3080/
Rs.3080/- (2200+880)
4. Loss on account of 10% Rs.308/
Rs.308/- (3080 x 10%)
disability
5. Multiplier 11 Rs.48,048/
Rs.48,048/- (308 x 15 x 12)
6. Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/-
7 Attendant Charges Rs.20,000/
Rs.20,000/-
8 Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/
Rs.30,000/-
9 Nutrition & Special Diet Rs.20,000/
Rs.20,000/-
10 Transport Charges Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/-
11 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/
Rs.50,000/-
12 Total Compensation Rs.1,93,048/
Rs.1,93,048/-
13. Compensation awarded by Rs.83,000/
Rs.83,000/-
the Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation Rs.
Rs.1,09,648/-
14. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176
and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @9%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization
realization.
15. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further
directed to disburse the amount of compensation along with interest in the account
FAO-1021-2006
2006 (O&M) -15-
of claimant/appellant. The claimant/appellant
claimant/appellant is directed to furnish his bank
account details to the Tribunal.
16. Disposed of accordingly.
according
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
November 08,, 2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
es/No
