Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh (Minor) vs Pankaj & Ors on 8 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -1-
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO
FAO-265-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 08.11.2024
Suresh (Minor) through his father Babu Lal ....Appellant
VERSUS
Pankaj and Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate for
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent - 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, Narnaul (for short, 'the Tribunal')) vide award dated 31.08.2005 under
/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby, the claimant/appellant
was awarded a compensation of Rs.78,000/-
Rs. along with interest @ 7.5%
% per
annum.
2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not
being adverted to for the sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant
claimant appellant contends that the amount
assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side
side.. He further submits that the
appellant suffered injuries on the right side of the chest and his right upper lung
was damaged. Learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the meager amount of
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -2-
compensation under the Heads pain and sufferings, special diet, attendant charges,
transportation and regarding unforeseen expenses in the hospital as he remained
admitted in hospital for nearly 25 days. Further, the Tribunal has committed patent
illegality
ty in not awarding any amount on account of loss of future prospects as the
appellant had suffered permanent disability to the tune of 15%. Learned counsel
also contends that the appellant being a student was also doing agriculture work
and dairy farming and was earning amount of Rs.8,000/
Rs.8,000/- per month. He, therefore,
therefore
prays that the present appeal be allowed and the amo
amount
unt of compensation be
enhanced, as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned for the respondent
respondent-Insurance Company argues that
the learned Tribunal
bunal vide award dated 31.08.2005 has rightly assessed the amount
of compensation. Therefore, 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.
case
6. A perusal of the award indicates that appellant - Suresh was 17 years
old meritorious student of 10+1. A perusal of the award further shows that
appellant Suresh has suffered 15% permanent disability on account of stiff right
shoulder,, which is evident from the disability certificate which is proved on record
as Ex.'P'. A perusal of the record further shows that the amount spent towards
medical treatment has been proved from documentary evidence proved on record
as Ex.P/3 to P/25. A perusal
rusal of award further shows that the amount awarded
towards pain and suffering, attendant and transportation charges is on the lower
side, which needs to be enhanced.
enhanced Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this
Court.
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -3-
7. This Court, in FAO No.4284 of 2006
2006, titled as Parvesh Vs. Satbir
and Others, decided on 23.08.2024, held as under:
under:-
"11.
11. The learned Tribunal while granting the compensation
has not taken into consideration the future of the appellant,
consequent to the accident. The learned Tribun
Tribunal
al failed to grant the
compensation on account the loss of income to the parents as well as
to the appellant and physical as well as mental loss to the appellant
with respect to his education, job and marriage. Further the learned
Tribunal did not take into
into consideration the total dependence of the
claimant upon his parents, for which the attendant is required for
whole of his life.
12. Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of V. Mekala vs. M.
Malathi and anr, 2014(11) SCC 178 wherein in a motor accident, the
victim was a student and bones of her both legs fractured. Hon'ble the
Supreme Court assessed her notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000/
and awarded her 50% future prospects. She was awarde
awarded
d Rs.3 lacs
under the head Loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects. She
was awarded Rs. 2 lacs under the head pain and suffering and Rs. 2
lacs under the head loss of amenity and attendant charges. The
relevant extract of the judgment is reproduc
reproduced as under:-
"17. The fact that the appellant was a brilliant student at the
time of the accident should also be taken into consideration while
awarding compensation to her. Therefore, taking Rs.6,000/
Rs.6,000/-- as
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -4-
monthly notional income by the Tribunal for the purpose of
awarding compensation under this head is too meager an amount.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 contended
that the appellant can still finish her education and find
employment and therefore, there is no necessity to enhance the
amount of compensation under the head of 'loss of income' and
'future prospects'. It is pertinent to reiterate here that the
claimant/ appellant has undergone and undergoing substantial
pain and suffering due to the accident which has rendered both
her legs dysfunctional. This has reduced the scope of her future
prospects including her marriage substantially. Moreover, a
tortfeasor is not entitled to dictate the terms of the claimants-
claimants
appellants career as has been held by the Karnataka High Court
in the case of K. Narsimha Murthy v. The Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd and Anr. ILR 2004 KARNATAKA 2471,
the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:
"41. .... Further, it needs to be emphasized that it is not the
right of the tortfeasor or a person who has taken over the
liability of the tortfeasor in terms of and under the Act to
dictate that the injured person should do some other work,
manual or otherwise,
erwise, it does not matter, may be with pain
and discomfort, in order to minimize his or its liability. Such
insistence is untenable in law and if such is the case, it
would violate basic human rights of the injured person. In
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -5-
this case, the appellant is reduced
educed to such a state that he is
unable to do any work, manual or otherwise, without
subjecting himself to pain and suffering, agony and
discomfort. In an accident, if a man is disabled for a work
which he was doing before the accident, that he has no
talents,
ents, skill, experience or training for anything else and he
is unable to find any work, manual or clerical, such a man
for all practical purposes has lost all earning capacity he
possessed before and he is required to be compensated on
the basis of total loss. In reaching this conclusion we may
derive support from the judgments in Daniels v. Sir Robert
Mc Alpine and Sons Limited and Blair v. FJC Lilley
(Marine) Limited. Secondly, the physical incapacity to earn
income sustained by the appellant is not temp
temporary, but
permanent and complete as per Exhibit P. 43. Thirdly, it
cannot be said that since the appellant has sustained only
54% permanent physical disability in respect of the whole
body as per P.W. 3, the Court should take into account
functional disability
ility also at 54% only while assessing the
loss of earning capacity. Such hypothesis does not stand to
reason nor can it be accepted as valid in terms of law. An
injured person is compensated for the loss which he incurs
as a result of physical injury and not for physical injury
itself. In other words, compensation is given only for what is
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -6-
lost due to accident in terms of an equivalent in money
insofar as the nature of money admits for the loss sustained.
In an accident, if a person loses a limb or eye or sustains an
injury, the Court while computing damages for the loss of
organs or physical injury, does not value a limb or eye in
isolation, but only values totality of the harm which the loss
has entailed the loss of amenities of life and infliction of
painn and suffering: the loss of the good things of life, joys of
life and the positive infliction of pain and distress."
18. Further, it has been held in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra)
that certain relevant
evant factors should be taken into consideration
while awarding compensation under the head of future prospect of
income. The relevant paragraph read as under:
"27. The question as to the methodology required to be
applied for determination of compensatio
compensation as regards
prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as
possible should be based on certain principles. A person
may have a bright future prospect; he might have become
eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been
chances of an immediate
ediate pay revision, whereas in another
the nature of employment was such that he might not have
continued in service; his chance of promotion, having
regard to the nature of employment may be distant or
remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -7-
rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There
are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested
that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be
inevitable. That may be so."
19. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in the
aforesaid case, it would be just and proper for this Court, and
keeping in mind her past results we take Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/- as her
monthly notional income for computation of just and reasonable
compensation under the head of loss of income. Further, the High
Court has failed to take into consideration the future prospects of
income based on the principles laid down by this Court in catena
of cases
ases referred to supra. Therefore, the appellant is justified in
seeking for re-enhancement
enhancement under this head as well and we hold
that the claimant- appellant is entitled to 50% increase under this
head as per the principle laid down by this Court in the case of
Santosh Devi (supra). The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"13. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), another two Judge
Bench considered various factors
ctors relevant for determining
the compensation payable in cases involving motor
accidents, noticed apparent divergence in the views
expressed by this Court in different cases, referred to large
number of precedents including the judgments in U.P. SRTC
v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, Nance v. British
Columbia Electric Railway Company Ltd. 1951 AC 601,
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -8-
Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. 1942
AC 601 and made an attempt to limit the exercise of
discretion by the Tribunals and the High Courts in the
matter of award of compensation by laying down
straightjacket formula under different headin
headings, some of
which are enumerated below:
(i) Addition to income for future prospects In Susamma
Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in
Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in
Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%.
In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in
favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was
as below 40 years. (Where the annual
income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary"
should be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition
should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50
years. There should be no addition, where th
the age of the
deceased is more than 50 years.
Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of
increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid
different yardsticks being applied or different methods of
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -9-
calculation being adopted. Where
ere the deceased was self
self-employed
employed
or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments,
etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time
of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and
exceptional cases involving
nvolving special circumstances.
Therefore, taking both the aspects into account, the total amount of
compensation under this head is calculated as Rs.22,68,000/-
Rs.22,68,000/
[(Rs.10,000/ x 70/100 + 10,000 x 70/100 x 50/100) x 12 x 18]
[(Rs.10,000/-x
20. The compensation under the head pain & suffering and
mental agony was awarded by the High Court after recording
concurrent finding with the award passed by the Tribunal.
However, the courts below have not recorded the nature of the
permanent disablement sustained by the appellant, w
while
hile
awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under this head which is too meager an
amount and is contrary to the judgment of R.D. Hattangadi and
Govind Yadav cases (supra). The relevant paragraphs of Govind
Yadav case read as under:
"25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain,
suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg
was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had
remained in the hospital for a period of over three months.
It is not possible
ssible for the tribunals and the courts to make a
precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a
person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident.
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -10-
Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will
suffer from different kinds of ha
handicaps and social stigma
throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the
tribunals and the courts should make a broad guess for the
purpose of fixing the amount of compensation.
26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a
young mann of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer
the trauma of not being able to do his normal work.
Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met by
awarding him a sum of Rs 1,50,000 in lieu of pain, suffering
and trauma caused due to the amput
amputation of leg."
Therefore, under this head the amount awarded should be
enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- as the Doctor
Doctor-PW2 has opined
that at the time of walking with support of crutches, the
claimant-appellant
appellant will be suffering pain permanently.
Therefore, under this head it has to be enhanced from
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-..
21. The loss of amenity and attendant charges awarded by
the courts below at Rs.1,00,000/
Rs.1,00,000/- is also too meager an
amount as the appellant has permanently lost her amenity
of both the legs.. For the purpose of walking, squatting,
running and also studying throughout her life and
particularly, at the advanced age, she will be requiring the
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -11-
attendant for giving assistance to attend the nature's call
and also at the time of sitting or moving ar
around. Therefore,
the compensation at this head is required to be enhanced
from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/
Rs.2,00,000/- based upon the
principle laid down by this court in Govind Yadav case
(supra), the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:
"27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss
of amenities was also meagre. It can only be a matter of
imagination as to how the appellant will have to liv
live for the
rest of his life with one artificial leg. The appellant can be
expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he
will not be able to live like a normal human being and will
not be able to enjoy life. The prospects of his marriage have
considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and
reasonable to award him a sum of Rs 1,50,000 for the loss
of amenities and enjoyment of life."
22. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of 'Loss
of enjoyment of life and marriage prospect
prospects'
s' at Rs.2,00,000/- is
totally inadequate since her marriage prospect has substantially
reduced and on account of permanent disablement she will be
deprived of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it would be just and
proper to enhance the compensation from Rs.2,
Rs.2,00,000/- to
Rs.3,00,000/ . In so far as, purchase of crutches periodically, it
Rs.3,00,000/-.
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -12-
would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/
Rs.50,000/-."
13. In view of the principles set forth in the V. Mekala's
(supra) and considering his past results, it is just and app
appropriate
ropriate for
this Court to fix his notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/-.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
8. 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, whi
which
ch 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
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,
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
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -13-
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
1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (In
(India)
dia)
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, me
medicines,
dicines,
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
re earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses. Non
Non-pecuniary
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 marri
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
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -14-
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 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 different percentages
of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the
nature of profession, occupation or job
job,, age, education and other
factors.
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -15-
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/-
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 tthe
he 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 annuall 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 hi
3000/- hiss 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/
36,000/- .
b) Loss of future earning per annum
(75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-.
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -16-
c) Multiplier applicable
plicable with reference to age : 17
d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/
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
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
also assessed as 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)].
actuals
9. 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 Vehicle
Vehicless Act, 1988, on the following
aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine
multiplicand;
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -17-
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;
(D) Reasonable figures on conve
conventional
ntional 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
judgment is reproduced as under:
under:-
" Therefore, we think it seemly 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 heads 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 percentag
percentagee 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."
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs. State
Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:
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';
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -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).
(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
15 25 years, the multiplier has to be '18
'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
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
M & 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 the
award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover
among others, the following aspects:
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -19-
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the acc
accident;
ident;
(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 resu
result
lt 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
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -20-
(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 respo
respondent
ndent 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 (su
(supra)
pra) 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 pr
principles
inciples
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
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -21-
view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish's
Jagdish
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 th
thee 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.
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -22-
CONCLUSION
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by
this Court in the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed and this
Court assess the notional monthly income of the appellant to the tune of Rs.5000/-.
Rs.5000/
The award dated 31.08.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellant
appellant-claimant
claimant is
entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as per the calculations made
here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1. Income Rs.5,000/
Rs.5,000/-
2. Future Prospects 40% Rs.2,000/
Rs.2,000/- (40% of 5000)
3. Annual Income Rs.84,000/
Rs.84,000/-
4. Loss of future earning per Rs.12,600/
Rs.12,600/- (15% of 84,000)
annum disability 15%
5. Multiplier 18
1 Rs.2,26,800/
Rs.2,26,800/- (12,600 x 18)
6. Medical Expenses Rs.5,000/
Rs.5,000/-
7 Attendant Charges Rs.40,000/
Rs.40,000/-
8 Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/
Rs.50,000/-
9 Nutrition & Special Diet Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/-
10 Transport Charges Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/-
11 Loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/
Rs.25,000/-
12 Loss of marriage prospects Rs.1,00,000/
Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.4,66,800/
Rs.4,66,800/-
Compensation awarded by Rs.78,000/
Rs.78,000/-
the Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation Rs.3,88,800/
Rs.3,88,800/-
12. 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 Nadu
Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
FAO-265-2006
2006 (O&M) -23-
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.
13. 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 enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in
the account of claimant/appellant. The claimant
claimant/appellant is directed to furnish his
bank account details to the Tribunal.
14. In views of the order passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 dated
18.07.2024, the insurance company is hereby directed to ddeposit
eposit the current
scheduled fees to Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate within a period of ten days from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
15. Disposed of accordingly.
16. 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
