Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navraj Kumar And Ors vs Avtar Singh And Ors on 22 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
1
FAO No.6901 of 2017 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.
No.22445-CII of 2017 in/&
FAO No.
No.6901 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Reserve: 22.07.2024
Date of Decision: 22.10.2024
NAVRAJ KUMAR AND ORS ......
......Appellant(s)
Vs
AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS ....Respondent
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
MANUJA
Present: Mr. Praagbir S. Dhindsa,
Dhindsa Advocate
for the appellants.
appellant
Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. V.K. Syal, Advocate
for respondent Nos.3 and 5.
Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate
for respondent No.4/Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM No.22445-CII
CII of 2017
Vide present application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 prayer is for releasing the amount of treatment as awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as "learned
learned
Tribunal")) in favour of appellant Nos.2 and 3 from the fixed deposit in the nam
namee of
appellant No.1.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
application.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "A.V. Padma and Ors. vs R.
Ors." reported as 2012 (3) SCC 378
Venugopal and Ors.", 378,, held that learned Tribunals
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
shall not be rigid in releasing the compensation from fixed deposit upon
application made by claimants and relevant para thereof is reproduced hereunder: -
"5. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist
on investment of the compensation
compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to
release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the
Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically
ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be
invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and
mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the
distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants
and widows and in the case of semi-
semi literate and
d literate persons. It needs
to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to
safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates
and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious
grounds.
rounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the
Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application
seeking release of the money. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the
Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after exa
examining
mining each case on its own
merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or
chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to
ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the
amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the
Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the
object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine
requirements of the claimants. Even in the cas
casee of literate persons, the
Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having
regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which
the claimant belongs
belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it
necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant
and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for
withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and
without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice
and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
the guidelines issued
issued by this Court, in every case the amount of
compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no
circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation
to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and
approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of
justice."
Therefore, in view of A.V. Padma's case (supra) and for the reasons
mentioned in the application as well as in the given facts and circumstances of the
present case, the application is allowed and the amount of treatment as awarded by
learned Tribunal in favour of appellant No.1 be release
released to appellant Nos.. 2 and 3,
forthwith.
[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated
19.12.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby an amount of Rs.7,50,000
7,50,000/-
was awarded as compensation in favour of appellant No.1 along with interest @
7.5%
% per annum.
Brief Facts
[2]. The appellants/claimants,
appellant filed claim petition before the learned
Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/
Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees
Sixty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 24% per annum on account of injuries
suffered by appellant No.1 (son of appellant Nos.2 and 3) in a motor vehicular
accident which took place on 11.10.2013, while alleging rash aand
nd negligent driving
by respondent No.1/driver.
[3]. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led
by both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver and
awarded compensation in the following manner:
manner:-
S.No Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs)
1. Medical expenses and Transportation Rs.5,39,141/-
2. Pain and suffering and further medical Rs.1,50,000/-
expenses
3. Personal Attendant Rs.20,000/-
4. Special Diet Rs.10,000/-
5. Miscellaneous and loss of earning of Rs.30,000/-
family
TOTAL: Rs.7,49,141/- rounded
off to Rs.7,50,000/-
Rs.7,50,000/
[4]. Being aggrieved against the award dated 19.12.2016,, the present
appeal has been preferred by the appellant
appellants/claimants for enhancement of
compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding
negligence of the driver been recorded in favour of the appellant
appellants by the Tribunal
has not been assailed, therefore,
therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being
repeated here. The only grievance raised is about quantum of compensation.
Arguments
[5]. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower part of
body of appellant No.1/injured
o.1/injured got crushed in the motor vehicular accident which
took place on 11.10.2013. It has been argued that although the appellant No.1
N
suffered 10% permanent disability only, he would continue to suffer from various
ailments throughout his life due to injuries received by him and would even require
further surgeries upon attaining majority. Learned Counsel also submitted that in
the present case no compensation has been awarded for loss of future income as
well as loss of marriage prospects.
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
Lastly, hee concluded with the argument that compensation under non
non-pecuniary
pecuniary
heads was also on the lower side and,
and thus, liable to be enhanced.
[6]. On the other hand, learned
learned counsel representing respondent
No.4/Insurance
nsurance Company submitted that the appellant
appellants/claimants had since been
adequately compensated and as such the impugned award warrants no interference
and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Discussion
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book of the case. I find force in the arguments
arguments advanced by the learning counsel
for the appellants/claimants.
appellant
Compensation under "Pecuniary Heads"
"Future loss of Income"
Income
[8]. The appellants proved on record copy of FIR as Ex.C4; copies of
discharge summaries as Ex.C6 to C8, C11 and C12 and copies of discharge cards
as Ex.C9 and C10.
[8.1]. In the present case, appellant No.1
No.1 being about 3 years of age at the
time of motor vehicular accident got his lower part of the body crushed by his
school van on 11.10.2013. He was operated upon and treated in Satguru Pratap
Singh Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana where he remained admitted from 11
11.10.2013
.10.2013 to
20.10.13 (10 days) (Ex.C6); from 18.11.2013 to 20.11.2013 (3 days) (Ex.C7) and
from 22.12.2013 to 23.12.2013 (2 days) (Ex.C8). Further, he also received
treatment from Shree Raghunath Charitable Hospital, Ludhiana where he remained
admitted from
m 19.03.2014 to 26.03.2014 (7 days) (Ex.C9) and from 24.04.2014 to
25.04.2014 (2 days) (Ex.C10). Even further, he received treatment from Sanjay
Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow where he remained
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
admitted from 26.07.2014 to 07.08.2014
07.08.2014 (13 days) (Ex.C11). Thus, appellant No.1
N
remained hospitalized for a period of 37 days in total.
[8.2]. Even though the disability certificate was not annexed with the claim
petition but was later presented before learned Tribunal and a photocopy thereof is
part of LCR at page No.138.
o.138. A perusal of disability certificate showed that
appellant No.1
o.1 suffered 10% physical impairment of progressive nature. Dr. Vikas
Bansal while appearing as CW1 deposed that due to the injuries suffered in the
accident, appellant No.1
o.1 may have multiple problems in future regarding urinary
functions and would require further surgeries in future. Even, Dr. Ravinderjit
Singh while appearing as CW3 deposed that appellant No.1
o.1 suffered disability of
stress in continence of his
his stools which he would continue to suffer throughout his
life. Further, Dr. Vikas Kumar while appearing as CW4 deposed that potency
status was doubtful till appellant No.1
o.1 attained the age of majority and would
require self-calibration
calibration at least for initial
initial few years.
In such circumstances, considering the extraordinary facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court in its humble opinion considers that
appellant No.1
o.1 would suffer functional disability to the extent of at least 25% while
bearing in
n mind the fact that disability suffered by appellant No.1 is of progressive
nature.
[8.3]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Kajal v. Jagdish Chand",
reported as (2020) 4 SCC 413,
413, while dealing with the issue of loss of future
income of a child in injury cases held that a child's income could be assessed at par
with that of a skilled workman; even future prospects @ 40% and multiplier of 18
could be applied. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder: -
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
"20. Both the courts below have held th
that
at since the girl was a young
child of 12 years only notional income of L 15,000/
15,000/- per annum can be
taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of
assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying
could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs
15,000/ per annum. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence
15,000/-
but taking notional income to be L 15,000/
15,000/- per annum is not at all
justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the
minimum wages
wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846/
4846/- per month.
In our opinion this would be the minimum amount which she would
have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future
prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40/
6784.40/- per month, i.e., 81,412.80 per
annum. Applying
Applying the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40,
which is rounded off to L 14,66,000/
14,66,000/-."
Now, placing reliance on prevalent minimum wages for skilled
labourer at the time of motor vehicular accident, the income of appellant No.1
o.1 is
assessed as Rs.5,602/-
Rs.5,602/ per month {Rs. 187/- per day (rounded off)}, and thus, loss
of future income while adding 40% future prospects and applying multiplier of 18
is assessed
ssessed as Rs.4,23,512/-
/100 = 1400.50 + 40% = 1960.70 x 12 x
18) (rounded off).
"Other
her Pecuniary Heads"
[9]. On account of present motor vehicular accident, appellant No.1
suffered multiple injuries and remained admitted as indoor patient for 37 days. A
cumulative analysis of testimonies of CW1 and CW3 makes it evidently clear that
appellant No.1
o.1 would require further surgeries and for which he may even require
transportation. Thus, compensation for future medical expenses as granted by
learned Tribunal needs to be reassessed and while placing reliance on Kajal's case
(supra) the same
same is assessed as Rs.5,00,000/
Rs.5,00,000/-.. The compensation for future
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
transportation is assessed as Rs.2,50,000/-
Rs.2,50,000/ and the compensation under the head of
special diet (including future special diet) is assessed as Rs.1,00,000/
Rs.1,00,000/- while
placing reliance on judgment rendered
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
"Abhimanyu Another", reported as (2022) 3
Abhimanyu Partap Singh Vs Namita Sekhon & Another"
557 Further, keeping in mind that appellant N
R.C.R (Civil) 557. No.1
o.1 remained in
hospital for 37 days and would even require further surgeries, tthe
he attendant charges
as awarded by learned Tribunal needs to be reassessed and the same is enhanced to
Rs.1,00,000/-.
Compensation under "Non-pecuniary
"Non pecuniary heads"
[10]. In the present case, appellant No.1
o.1 suffered multiple serious injuries
and as per medical opinion of CW4 he may even become impotent upon attaining
majority. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great
difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental lo
loss
ss into monetary
terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An
assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. In Abhimanyu's
case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"21. Under the head "non-pecuniary
pecuniary damages", the claimant has
faced the pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries. It is
to observe that to award compensation under the head "pain, shock
and suffering", multiple factors are required to be considered from the
date of accident, which include the prolonged hospitalization and
regular medical assistance, nature of the injuries sustained, the
operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and
suffering. Simultaneously, he has to suffer post
post-accident
accident agony for
whole
ole life, including the amenities of life, which he can enjoy as a
normal man but unable to do so on account of permanent disability.
In the era of competition, he can perform better as a normal man but
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
is unable to compete with others. Therefore, under th
thee head "pain,
shock and suffering", amount of compensation deserves to be granted.
****
23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature
of injuries in our considered opinion, the appellant is entitled for a
sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
Rs.4,00,000/ in the head of loss of amenities of life and
marital bliss, pain and sufferings, loss of enjoyment and loss of
expectancy...."
Therefore, after giving thoughtful insight to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, the compensation under the heads of loss of
marriage prospects; pain and sufferings is cumulatively assessed as Rs.4,00,000/-.
Rs.4,00,000/
Conclusion
[11]. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant No.1
shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner
manner:-
Sr.No. Nature Amount in
Rupees
1. Loss of future income Rs.4,23,512/-
2. Medical Expenses and transportation (as Rs.5,39,141/-
awarded by ld. Tribunal)
3. Future Medical Expenses Rs.5,00,000/-
4. Pain & Suffering and Loss of marriage Rs.4,00,000/-
prospects
5. Attendant charges (including future attendant Rs.1,00,000/-
charges)
6. Future Transportation Rs.2,50,000/-
7. Special Diet (including future special diet) Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.23,12,653//-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.7,50,000/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.15,62,653//-
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143332
[12]. The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is unjust
just in view of the facts
and circumstances of the present case and as per the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance
Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent
judgment titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another,
2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 the interest is enhanced to 9% per aannum
nnum on the amount
of compensation awarded to the claimant No.1 from the date of institution of claim
petition till its realization while excluding the period of delay in filing the
he present
appeal. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to
the claimant No.1 shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
[13]. In view of aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed
of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
October 22,, 2024
202 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
