Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Ins.Co.Ltd vs Harman Singh Dhanoa & Ors on 20 January, 2025
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 1
106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with
XOBJC-50-CII-2014(O&M)
Reserved on: 05.12.2024
Pronounced on: 20.01.2025
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ... Appellant
Versus
HARMAN SINGH DHANOA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: - Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate
for the appellant/Insurance company.
Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate,
for the respondent no.1/cross-objector.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
[1]. By way of present appeal filed at the instance of Insurance
Company, prayer has been made for reduction towards the amount of
compensation while impugning the award dated 01.10.2013 passed by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.A.S Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter
referred to as "Tribunal"), whereby, Rs.70,97,000/- along with interest @
6% per annum was awarded as compensation to respondent no.1/claimant.
In this appeal, cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Section
151 CPC have also been filed at the instance of respondent No.1/cross-
objector seeking enhancement/ modification of the award passed by the
Tribunal.
Brief Facts
[2]. Respondent no.1, Harman Singh Dhanoa, filed claim petition
before the learned Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune
of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 2
vehicular accident which took place on 17.08.2010 while alleging rash and
negligent driving by respondent No.2/driver.
[3]. After going through the pleadings and upon evaluating the
evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion
that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.2/driver; holding the appellant and respondents no.2 and 3
jointly and severally liable and awarded compensation in the following
manner: -
Sr.No Nature Amount in Rupees
.
1. Loss of income due to functional Rs.54,50,544/-
Disability @ 100%
2. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Loss of Marriage Prospects Rs.2,00,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs.66,112/-
5. Transportation Rs.1,00,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.8,64,000/-
7. Special diet Rs.1,00,000/-
8. Physiotherapy charges Rs.2,16,000/-
TOTAL: Rs.70,96,656/-
(Rs.70,97,000/-
rounded of)
[4]. Being aggrieved against the award dated 01.10.2013, the
present appeal was preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company,
seeking reduction of compensation; whereas the cross objections were
filed by respondent No.1/cross-objector, praying for enhancement of
compensation.
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 3
Arguments
[5]. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that in facts and circumstances of the present case, it was clearly
a case of contributory negligence as the claimant-respondent No.1 was
driving the two-wheeler without wearing a helmet. To buttress his
arguments, he referred to the testimony of Dr. Rajinder Chhabra, Dept of
Neuro Surgery, PGI Chandigarh PW-3, who examined the claimant in the
hospital, and in cross-examination stated that as per the records injured
was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and had he been wearing
the same while riding the bike, he would not have suffered injuries to this
extent. Therefore, it was submitted that respondent No. 1 being in violation
of Section 129 of the Act sustained fatal injury on his head, thus, 20%
contributory negligence should have been attributed to him and
compensation to that extent was not to be paid to him. He further argued
that the Tribunal erred in law while not deducting conveyance allowance
from the gross salary as shown in the Income Tax Return for the year
2011-2012 as Ex-P12. Lastly, he argued that the Tribunal solely relied
upon the undated documents exhibited as Ex-P7 and Ex-P9, showing the
revised salary of the claimant while deciding the income of the claimant.
Since there were various documents showing unalike income of the
claimant, under such circumstances the same assessed by the Tribunal
was on the higher side, thus, compensation awarded was liable to be
reduced.
[6]. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/injured
submitted that merely not wearing of helmet or on account of violation of
rules about driving of a motor vehicle, respondent No.1 was not to be made
liable for contributory negligence or for deduction of amount of
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 4
compensation awarded to him. He further relied upon the testimony of
Captain Baldev Singh PW-2, grandfather of the claimant who in his cross
examination deposed that his grandson was turbaned Sikh and was
wearing one at the time of accident. He further submitted that the Tribunal
assessed the income of the claimant on the lesser side as his colleagues
were getting around Rs. 8 lacs per annum which was even confirmed by
Rakesh Vashisht, Senior Officer, Tube Products of India PW-1, thus, it
should have been assessed accordingly. He also submitted that
considering the nature of his injuries, respondent no.1 would require
minimum two attendants throughout his life and as such compensation was
required to be assessed in this regard. Lastly, he concluded with the
argument that compensation under conventional heads was on the lower
side and thus, the impugned award be modified/enhanced.
Discussion
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused paper-
book as well as records of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced
by learned counsel for respondent no.1/cross-objector.
Question of contributory negligence
[8]. The first question which arose before this court was as to
whether merely non wearing of helmet while driving a two wheeler would
amount to contributory negligence. In this regard, learned Counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company relied upon the judgment passed by this
Court in the case of "The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus
Dharambir & Ors"., FAO-2938 of 2018, wherein contributory negligence
to the extent of 20% was attributed to the deceased for non-wearing of
helmet. However, Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1/cross-objector heavily
placed reliance on the testimony of grandfather of the claimant Capt.
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 5
Baldev Singh PW-2, who specifically stated that his grandson was wearing
turban at the time of accident and this fact even remained un-
rebutted/uncountered during his further cross-examination and no cogent
evidence in positive was produced to oppose the same. Even in the
discharge slips of Command Hospital (WC), Chandi Mandir Ex.P25 to
Ex.P29, the religion of the claimant was written as Sikh. In such
circumstances, placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of "Anjana Narayan Kamble v. Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited" reported as 2023 ACJ
346, wherein it was held that there must either be a causal connection
between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the
violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim, it can be safely
recorded that no case of contributory negligence was made out against
respondent No.1 merely on account of non-wearing of helmet at the time of
accident especially in the absence of any positive evidence in this regard
while driving the vehicle. Relevant excerpts thereof are reproduced
hereunder:-
"6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the
judgement of this Court in Mohammed Siddique & Anr. v.
National Insurance Company Limited & Others reported in
(2020) 3 SCC 57, wherein this Court held that the deceased
was negligent as 3 persons on a motor cycle could have added
to the imbalance. It was held that motor cyclist may be violating
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for which the deceased may be
liable to penalty but such violation by itself, cannot lead to a
finding of contributory negligence. This court held:-
"13. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact
that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with
the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything
more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 6
most it would make him guilty of being a party to the
violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two
wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person
on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted by the
Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for
violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and
pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a
pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one
more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law.
But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot
lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is
established that his very act of riding along with two
others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact
of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a
causal connection between the violation and the accident
or a causal connection between the violation and the
impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen
at times, that the accident could have been averted or the
injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if
there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What
could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might
have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to
the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases,
where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident
could have been averted or the impact could have been
minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence
could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the
accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding
on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that
the accident would have been averted, if three persons
were not riding on the motor cycle............"
7. In the present case, there is no such evidence of contributory
negligence except fact of three riders on the motor cycle and of
not wearing helmet by the deceased. Therefore, in view of the
TEJWINDER SINGH enunciation of law, we find that the High Court was not justified
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 7
in deducting 30% of the amount of compensation assessed by
the Tribunal for the reason that the deceased was triple riding
the Motor Cycle or was not wearing a helmet. The violation of
rules for driving a motor vehicle is not a ground to deduct the
amount of compensation awarded unless there is proof of either
the accident could have been averted or the impact could have
been minimized."
In view of the exposition of law discussed as above, this Court in its
humble opinion, holds that the Tribunal rightly held that no case for
contributory negligence was made out in present facts and thus, the
Tribunal's Award requires no interference in this regard.
[9]. The next argument, that the conveyance allowance should
have been deducted from the gross salary of the claimant, was answered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nalini" reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2252, wherein it was held that
allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance,
provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be
added while considering the basic salary of victim/deceased to arrive at the
dependency factor. Relevant para's thereof are reproduced hereunder:-
"2. The aforesaid aspect is no longer res integra inasmuch as a
three Judges Bench of this Court in Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. U.P.
SRTC has clearly held as follows:-
"11. Strikingly, the High Court noted the taxable income
disclosed in tax return of the appellant for the relevant
period as Rs. 77,480/- (rounded off) and tax deduction of
Rs. 4,496/-, yet proceeded to hold that the net income of
the appellant has been rightly taken into consideration by
the Tribunal. It is unfathomable that the High Court,
despite having accepted the claim of the appellant
founded on his tax return for the relevant period,
TEJWINDER SINGH disclosing the taxable income of the appellant as Rs.
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 8
77,480/- (rounded off) and deduction of tax of Rs. 4,496/-
could have affirmed the conclusion of the Tribunal that the
net annual income of the appellant was Rs. 44,511/-. It
ought to have reckoned the taxable income for computing
the head towards loss of income. This, in our opinion, is
the manifest error committed by the High Court. The
appellant is justified in relying upon the decisions of this
Court which have taken the view that loss of taxable
earning should be reckoned for the purpose of
determining just compensation as enunciated in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava, which has been
followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben
and Kavita v. Deepak. It has been held that the "income"
should include those benefits, either in terms of money or
otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the
purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax,
although some elements thereof may, or may not be
taxable due to the exemption conferred thereupon under
the statute."
3. It is apparent from the observations made in the aforesaid
decision that the emoluments and the benefits accruing to the
deceased under various heads for the purposes of computation
of loss of income, which are described by learned counsel for
the petitioner-Insurance Company as personal to him to arrive
at the dependency factor, ought to be included irrespective of
whether they are taxable or not."
On the aspect of enhancement of compensation
Assessment under "loss of income and future income"
[10]. To prove the case, Capt. Baldev Singh who happened to be the
grandfather of respondent No.1 tendered in evidence his affidavit as
Ex.PW2/A; copy of medical slips as Ex.P36 to Ex.P74; Ex.P17 & Ex.P18 as
copies of discharge summaries and follow-up cards of PGI Hospital,
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 9
Chandigarh, Ex.P25 to Ex.P29 as discharge slips of Command Hospital
(WC), Chandi Mandir, and disability certificate as Ex.P79.
[10.1]. In the present case, injured/claimant joined as Junior Engineer
(CWD) in grade SG-1, in the supervisory cadre in TPI Mohali in the year
2007 vide Ex.P1; Ex.P-2 being supplementary terms of service; Ex.P-3
letter dated 22.03.2008 vide which claimant was re-designated as Deputy
Engineer (CDW) from 01.01.2008 onwards; Ex.P-4, the appreciation letter
dated 17.08.2009; Ex.P-5 granting him site allowance of Rs.1500/- per
month; vide Ex.P-6 letter dated 01.01.2010, considering the performance
his salary was increased effectively from 01.01.2010 onwards from
Rs.1,57,359/- to Rs. 1,81,700/- per annum (Ex.P-7); his salary and
allowances were again revised vide letter of appreciation dated 21.07.2010
w.e.f. 01.07.2010 onwards (Ex.P-8) from Rs.1,81,700/- to Rs. 2,01,872/-
per annum (Ex.P-9); Ex.P-12 claimant's income tax return for the
assessment year 2011-12 filed on 20.05.2011 showing his annual salary of
Rs. 1,11,758/- and Ex.P-13 being salary slip dated 22.11.2013 showing his
salary as Rs.14,100/- per month. Considering the aforementioned exhibits
the income of the claimant was duly proved.
[10.2]. Now the question arises whether the income assessment was
to take note of the future earning capacity of his/her colleagues. Rakesh
Vashisht, Senior Officer, Tube Products of India, Mohali (PW-1) in his
testimony categorically stated that the claimant was selected on the basis
of campus selection from Chandigarh College of Engineering, Sector 26
Chandigarh and was ranked as No.1 in selection process. He further
deposed that his colleagues were presently working in the organization and
were getting Rs. 3 lacs per annum whereby two of his colleagues who
joined L & T Limited Company were getting package of Rs. 8 Lacs per
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 10
annum. In such circumstances, reference can be made to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "S. Vasanthi. & Anr. vs M/s
Adhiparasakthi Engg. College and Another", reported as 2022 (4)
R.C.R. (Civil) 837, wherein it was held that in case of death of a student
income assessment could be made at par with the future earning capacity
of his/her classmates. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
"11. It could thus be seen that the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan
was twenty-three years of age at the time of the accident. He
was a qualified engineering graduate and was pursuing an
MBA degree at SRM University to further his professional
capabilities. In view of the specific averments made in the
affidavit as to the employment prospects of the classmates of
the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan and also his young age at the
time of the accident, we are of the considered view that the
Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not giving due
weightage to the same. Had the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan
not met with the unfortunate accident, he would have surely
drawn a salary equivalent to that of his classmates or at least
an amount near the said amount......"
Though the case of S. Vasanthi (supra) relates to an accidental
death case but its analogy could be safely supplanted to the facts and
circumstances of the present case considering the fact that in the present
case, the injured/claimant suffered injuries which rendered him 100%
permanently disabled including total blindness, deafness and reduced his
I.Q to below 20.
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd.", reported as (2010) 10 SCC 254, while
considering the notional income of a student held as under:-
"14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering
(Mechanical) from the prestigious institute like BIT, it can
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 11
be reasonably assumed that he would have got a good
job. The appellant has stated in his evidence that in the
campus interview he was selected by Tata as well as
Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of
Rs.3,50,000 per annum. Even if that is not accepted for
want of any evidence in support thereof, there would not
have been any difficulty for him in getting some decent
job in the private sector. Had he decided to join
government service and got selected, he would have
been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and
would have atleast earned Rs. 60,000 per annum.
Wherever he joined, he had a fair chance of some
promotion and remote chance of some high position. But
uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking relevant
factors into consideration......"
Therefore, in view of the discussion made hereinabove,
considering that the claimant had diploma in Mechanical Engineering and
was pursuing B. Tech degree from Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar
and was in final semester when he met with an accident which led him
being bed ridden, thus, the income of the injured/claimant is cautiously
assessed as Rs.5,00,000/- per annum (Rs. 1370/- per day rounded off)
[10.3]. In the present case perusal of record showed that
injured/claimant was taken to PGI, Hospital, Chandigarh in emergency on
17.08.2010, where he was operated till 18.8.2010 and was shifted to ICU
and remained there till 10.09.2010 (25 days). After his discharge on
10.09.2010, claimant/respondent No.1 was taken to Command Hospital
(WC), Chandi Mandir on the same day from where he was discharged on
31.12.2010 (113 days). He was again admitted in Command Hospital
(WC), Chandi Mandir, on 29.01.2011 and was discharged on 31.01.2011
(03 days); admitted to PGI, Chandigarh on 06.06.2011 and discharged on
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 12
08.06.2011 (02 days); admitted to Command Hospital (WC), Chandi Mandir
from 28.06.2011 to 01.07.2011 (04 days) and then from 05.05.2012 to
30.05.2012 (26 days). From cumulative analysis of copy of medical slips
(Ex.P36 to Ex.P74) and discharge summaries (Ex.P17, Ex.P18, Ex.P25 to
Ex.P29) respectively, it is evident that respondent no.1 remained admitted
as indoor patient in PGI, Chandigarh as well as Command Hospital (WC),
Chandi Mandir after accident for 173 days, therefore, compensation under
the head of loss of income during hospitalization needs to be assessed as
Rs. 2,37,010/- (Rs. 1370 X 173). Further, this Court in its humble opinion
and in the facts of the present case, while relying upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others", reported as 2017 (4) R.C.R
(Civil) 1009 conservatively assesses the loss of future income by applying
multiplier of 18 as Rs.1,35,00,000/- (Rs. 5,00,000 + 50%= 7,50,000 X 18).
Assessment under "other pecuniary heads"
[10.4] Upon perusal of copy of medical bills and discharge summaries
and the averments made in affidavit of Capt. Baldev Singh PW-2, it is
evident that respondent No.1 was firstly taken from place of accident to
Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
and later to Command Hospital (WC), Chandi Mandir, where he continued
his follow up treatment, therefore, compensation under the head of
transportation is assessed as Rs. 2,00,000/-.
[10.5] Further, Dr. Rajesh Chhabra, Department of Neuro Surgery,
PGI Chandigarh, while appearing as PW3 deposed that respondent no.1
would require attendant throughout his life while having become
permanently disabled to the extent of 100% in relation of whole body due to
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 13
profound mental retardation. Admittedly, respondent no.1 remained in
hospital for 173 days and would have definitely required attendant and
nutritious diet during that period and even after discharge from the hospital,
as evident from deposition of Dr. Rajesh Chhabra (PW3), therefore,
compensation under the head of nutrious diet is assessed as Rs.2,00,000/-
.
For assessing the attendant charges reliance can be placed
upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Kajal v.
Jagdish Chand", reported as (2020) 4 SCC 413, wherein it was held that
in cases where attendant is required even after discharge from the hospital,
multiplier method could be used for making the assessment. Relevant
excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder: -
"22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High
Court @ Rs. 2,500/- per month for 44 years, which works out to
Rs. 13,20,000/-. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper
system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors.
When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors
are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in
lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system.
The multiplier system should be followed not only for
determining the compensation on account of loss of income but
also for determining the attendant charges etc. This system
was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v.
R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1. The multiplier
system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable
on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also
other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the
various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been
recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It
ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in
TEJWINDER SINGH award of `just compensation' within the meaning of the Act."
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 14
Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Abhimanyu Partap Singh
v. Namita Sekhon, reported as (2022) 8 SCC 489 while keeping in mind
the nature of injuries and growing age of the injured granted two attendants
for 12 hours each as he required all time attendants for his daily routine
works. Relevant para No. 23 is reproduced herewith:-
"23. In the head of medical expenses, the MACT or the High
Court has not awarded any compensation presumably because
the mother of the claimant, who was minor at the time of
accident, may have claimed the amount of medical expenses
being an IAS officer. But now the claimant has become major,
and looking to the nature of injuries, future medical expenses
that includes the attendant charges, use of diapers due to loss
of urination senses is required to be calculated including future
medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs 1,92,000 in the
head of attendant charges @ Rs 1000 p.m. While the High
Court proceeded on the premises that the rate of the attendant
charges is variable after every five years, however, the Court
calculated the amount @ Rs 2000 thereafter @ Rs 4000 p.m.
for a period of 20 years and accordingly determined Rs
9,00,000 making enhancement of Rs 7,08,000 in the said head.
As discussed, if we apply the multiplier method and in view of
the judgment of Kajal , we accept the rate of attendant charges
at Rs 5000 p.m. for 12 hours, looking to the nature of injuries
and disability the claimant is required two attendants at least
within 24 hours then the expenses in the head of attendant
charges comes to Rs 10,000 p.m. If we apply the multiplier of
18, the amount comes to Rs 21,60,000."
Therefore, in the facts in hand compensation for attendant
charges, by taking Rs. 5,000/- p.m./per attendant for 12 hours and also
while looking at the nature of injuries, claimant/respondent No.1 requiring
two attendants costing Rs.10,000/- per month, and by applying multiplier of
18 the same is assessed as Rs. 21,60,000/- (5000 (each) X 12 X 18).
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 15
[10.6] Similarly, for medical expense under the head of physiotherapy,
the Tribunal granted Rs. 1000/- per month which is on the lower side and
thus the same needs to be reassessed. These days the physiotherapist
would normally charge Rs. 200 per hour, which monthly comes to Rs. 6000
per month and by applying multiplier of 18 the same comes to Rs.
12,96,000/- (6000 X 12 X 18).
Assessment under 'non-pecuniary heads'
[11]. In motor accident cases, determining the value of pain and
suffering is a complex process which involves consideration of various
factors and their subjective assessment. Unlike economic damages such
as medical expenses or lost wages, which can be calculated based on
objective evidence; damages on account of pain and suffering are more
intangible and subjective. While no amount of compensation can alleviate
the mental trauma and agony caused to the injured and loss to the future
enjoyment of amenities of life, but societal balance could be maintained if
some lumpsum amount could be awarded on account of permanent
disability. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "K.S. Muralidhar v. R.
Subbulakshmi" reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385 was pleased to
held as under:-
"15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries
suffered, the 'pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long
nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and
the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the
request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such,
award Rs. 15,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', fully
conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant-appellant
for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs.
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 16
10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and
reasonable at the amount so awarded."
Therefore, in the present case, respondent no.1 is held entitled
for compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of his
permanent disability as well as "pain and sufferings" after placing reliance
on K.S. Muralidhar's case (supra).
Further, considering the stigma associated with the amputation
and disfigurement of body resulting into diminished marital prospects,
respondent no.1 is held entitled for compensation to the tune of
Rs.5,00,000/- on account of "loss of marriage prospects".
Conclusion
[12]. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, respondent
No.1/cross-objector shall be entitled for the grant of following
compensation: -
Sr.No. Nature Amount in
Rupees
1. Loss of Income and Loss of future Rs.1,37,37,010/-
Income (2,37,010+1,35,00,000)
2. Pain and Suffering Rs.15,00,000/-
3. Loss of Marriage Prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
4. Transportation Rs.2,00,000/-
5. Nutritious Diet Rs.2,00,000/-
6. Attendant Charges Rs.21,60,000/-
7. Physiotherapy Charges Rs.12,96,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,95,93,010/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.70,97,000/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.1,24,96,010/-
FAO-263-2014 (O&M) with XOBJC-50-CII-2014 (O&M) 17
[13]. The grant of interest @ 6% per annum is not just in view of the
facts and circumstances of the present case; rather as per the observations
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited and other", reported as (2009) 4
SCC 513, approved in a subsequent judgment titled as "Puttamma and
others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another", reported as 2014 (1)
RCR (Civil) 443, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount
of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of
claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here that the amount
of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the
enhanced compensation.
[14]. Accordingly, the appeal filed at the instance of Insurance
Company is disposed of in above terms and the cross-objections filed at
the instance of respondent No.1 are allowed with aforesaid modification of
the award passed by the Tribunal.
[15]. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
January 20, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
