Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Maninderjit Singh And Ors on 3 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
203 FAO-2249-2015 (O&M) and
XOBJC-167-CII-2016
Date of Decision : 03.03.2025
Shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd ....Appellant
VERSUS
Maninderjit Singh and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate for
Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advocate
for cross-objector/respondent No.1.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose off the above captioned appeal filed by
the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 09.12.2014
whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.10,97,702/- was awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal') in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1 herein as well as the
Cross objections being XOBJC-167-CII-2016 filed by the claimant
respondent No.1 herein for enhancement of the said compensation.
2. The parties are referred to as the Insurance Company, claimant,
driver and owner hereinafter for the sake of clarity.
3. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 21.01.2013
the claimant alongwith his uncle, namely, Pradeep Singh was going from
Samrala to village Dhilwan. The claimant was going ahead of his uncle on a
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030032
FAO-2249-2015 (O&M) and
scooter bearing registration No.PB-10AF-4133. When they reached near
Pirmary School, Otalna, on Samrala-Khanna Road, a Tipper bearing
registration No.PB-12M-8879 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending
vehicle') was lying stationary on the road without any signal or indication
and in order to save himself from the impact of a Bolero, which was coming
from Khanna side, the claimant struck against the offending vehicle as a
result of which he sustained serious injuries. The claimant was taken to Civil
Hospital, Samrala from where he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana,
where he remained admitted. It was averred in the claim petition that the
claimant was studying in Nankana Sahib Public School, Samrala in class
10+2 and was hale and hearty prior to the accident and that due to the
accident he became disabled and his face got disfigured due to which his
marriage and future prospects have been diminished.
4. On notice the driver of the offending vehicle appeared and filed
his written statement taking preliminary objections qua the maintainability
of the claim petition against him averring therein that he was not the driver
of the offending vehicle and that the alleged accident never took place.
Owner of the offending vehicle also appeared and raised various preliminary
objections. He denied the accident and stated that the offending vehicle was
fully insured with the Insurance Company and had valid RC, Insurance,
fitness certificate and route permit.
5. Insurance Company filed its written statement and took various
preliminary objections that the claim petition was not maintainable as no
such accident ever took place with the offending vehicle. It was stated in the
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030032
FAO-2249-2015 (O&M) and
written statement that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of
the claimant and that too with some other vehicle.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether claimant suffered injury in an accident, occurred
on 21.01.2013 by respondent Harpreet Singh, while driving the
offending vehicle i.e. Truck Tipper bearing No.PB-12M-8879
in rash and negligent manner ? OPP
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so,
to what amount and from whom ? OPP
3. Whether the claim petition against respondents is not
maintainable ? OPR
4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and
mis-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR
5. Relief.
7. The Tribunal held the joint and several liability of the driver,
owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company to pay the
following compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income assessed Rs.10,000/-
2 Loss of income due to Rs.38,709/-
disability of 31%
3 Compensation after [Rs.38,709 x 18] = Rs.6,96,762/-
multiplier of 18 is applied
4 Loss of future prospects Rs.25,000/-
5 Loss of marriage prospects Rs.50,000/-
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030032
FAO-2249-2015 (O&M) and
6 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
7 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-
8 Loss of expectation of life Rs.25,000/-
9 Medical bills [Rs.3,41,177 + 26,040 + 33,733] =
Rs.4,00,950/-
Total Compensation Rs.12,57,412 /- (wrongly typed as
Rs.10,97,702)
Interest 6% per annum
8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that
it was a case of contributory negligence as the offending vehicle was
stationary while it was struck against from behind by the claimant. It is
further the contention that income of the claimant as assessed by the
Tribunal is on the higher side.
9. Learned counsel for the claimant (cross-objector) has contended
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side
inasmuch the compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary heads i.e. loss
of future prospects, loss of amenities and marriage prospects, pain and
suffering also on the lower side. It is further the contention that no amount
has been awarded towards special diet and transportation charges. Learned
counsel for the claimant would further contend that there was no
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
10. Heard.
11. In the present case, as per PW2 Dr. Jaswinder Singh, Medical
Officer, Civil Hospital, Samrala, the claimant suffered permanent disability
of whole body to the extent of 31% and this witness has proved on record
the disability certificate of the claimant as Ex.P2/1. There is no contrary
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030032
FAO-2249-2015 (O&M) and
evidence to falsify the statement of PW2 Dr. Jaswinder Singh. Accordingly,
the disability of the claimant has rightly been assessed by the Tribunal to the
extent of 31% and the same is maintained.
12. The argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company
that it was a case of contributory negligence deserves to be rejected
inasmuch as in the present case the offending vehicle was admittedly
stationary on the road and the claimant in order to save himself from the
impact of an oncoming Bolero, struck against the offending vehicle from
behind which was parked on the road without any indicator or signal. There
is no evidence on record indicating that the claimant contributed to the
happening of the accident as alleged by the Insurance Company. Even in this
regard no suggestion was put to the claimant and thus in the absence of any
direct or corroborative evidence on record, the claimant cannot be held liable
for contributory negligence.
13. Admittedly, the claimant was a student of 10+2 and was aged
about 17 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income
as Rs.10,000/- per month. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of of Kajal Vs.
Jagdish Chand & Ors. [2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 27] while assessing the
income of a minor aged 12 who had suffered 100% disability had assessed
the income of the child as per the minimum wages payable to a skilled
worker as prevailing at the time of the accident. Their Lordships in para 20
of the said judgment had held as under :
"20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl
was a young child of 12 years only notional income of
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030032
FAO-2249-2015 (O&M) and
Rs.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 but taking notional income to be
Rs.15,000/- per annum is not at all justified. The
appellant has placed before us material to show that the
minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is
Rs.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/ - per month, i.e., 81,412.80
per annum. Applying the multiplier of 18 it works out to
Rs.14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs.14,66,000/-."
Their Lordships had applied 40% towards future prospects and a multiplier
of 18.
14. Similarly in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor
Ahmad Simon & Anr. [2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238] where the incident
related to a 7 years' old child who met with an accident in the year 2009, the
Court had once again assessed the income of the minor child who had
suffered injuries as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker.
In para 29 of the said judgment it was held as under :
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030032
FAO-2249-2015 (O&M) and
"29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held
that taking notional income is not the correct approach.
Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled
workman in the concerned State has to be taken into
consideration because, that would be the minimum
amount which she would have earned on becoming a
major. In this case, the minimum wage payable to a
skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the time of the
accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was Rs.4,358/- per month."
Their Lordships had in the said case also as in the case of Kajal (supra)
added 40% towards future prospects and applied a multiplier of 18.
15. Taking a cue from the two afore-referred judgments, in the
present case the claimant, who was about 17 years of age and was a 10+2
student at the time of accident in the year 2013, this Court deems it
appropriate to assess the income as per the minimum wages for a skilled
worker, which were Rs.8,404/- per month. Keeping in view the nature of
disability, which is of whole body to the extent of 31%, the Tribunal has
rightly applied a multiplier method in the present case, however, in the
opinion of this Court has erroneously awarded a lump sum amount of
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of future prospects, which ought to have been 40%
in view of the above referred law.
16. Further, the amount awarded towards loss of amenities and
marriage prospects, in the opinion of this Court is on the lower side and the
same is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. The amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030032
FAO-2249-2015 (O&M) and
towards pain and suffering is also on the lower side keeping in view the
disability of the claimant and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. The
Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards 'special diet' and hence, this
Court deems it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards
special diet. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
transportation charges and hence, the claimant is awarded an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. The amount of Rs.4,00,950/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards medical bills is maintained. Accordingly,
the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.8,404/-
2 Loss of income due to 31% [Rs.8,404 x 5,796] = Rs.2,605/-
disability
3 Annual income [Rs.2,605 x 12] = 31,260/-
4 Future prospects @ 40% [Rs.31,260 + 12,504] = Rs.43,764/-
5 Loss of income after [Rs.43,764 x 18] = Rs.7,87,752/-
applying multiplier '18'
6 Loss of amenities and Rs.5,00,000/-
marriage prospects
7 Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
8 Special Diet Rs.25,000/-
9 Transportation charges Rs.10,000/-
10 Medical expenses Rs.4,00,950/-
Total Compensation Rs. 18,73,702/-
17. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030032
FAO-2249-2015 (O&M) and
18. In view of the above discussion, impugned award passed by the
Tribunal is modified and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company as well
as the cross-objections filed by the claimant stand disposed off. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
03.03.2025 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
9 of 9
