Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satyan Dua vs Ess Ess Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 24 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
1
FAO No.5127 of 2009 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.
No.5127 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Reserve: 10.03.2025
Date of Decision: 24.03.2025
SATYAN DUA ......
......Appellant(s)
Vs
ESS ESS BATHROOM PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER
....Respondent
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
MANUJA
Present: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for
the appellant.
Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate
for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
[1]. The present appeal lays challenge to an award dated 16.04.2009
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity,
"learned Tribunal"), whereby an amount of Rs.8,47,024/- was awarded as
compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on
account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident.
Brief Facts
[2]. The appellant/claimant being injured, filed claim petition before the
learned
ed Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered
by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 26.01.2006, while
alleging rash and negligent driving of one Mr. Manoj Seth/driver who succumbed
to his injuries on the spot.
s
[3]. After going through the pleadings and evaluating the evidence led by
both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred
1 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
on account of rash and negligent driving of Mr. Manoj S
Seth/driver;
eth/driver; holding
respondent Nos.1
os.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable; awarded compensation in the
following manner: -
S.No Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs)
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs.2,00,000/-
2. Medical treatment Rs.4,79,024/-
3. Special Diet Rs.10,000/-
4. Transportation for medical treatment and Rs.3,000/-
follow-up treatment
5. Attendants Rs.5,000/-
6. Loss of enjoyment of life and amenities Rs.1,50,000/-
Total Rs.8,47,024/-
[4]. Being aggrieved against the award dated 16.04.2009, the present
appeal was preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation.
Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the
driver as held by the Tribunal being in favour of appellant, therefore, for the sake
of brevity,
ty, those are not being repeated here.
Arguments
[5]. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant assailed the award by
submitting that the appellant was a student of 18 years of age at the time of motor
vehicular accident,
accident who suffered 80% permanent disability, and learned Tribunal
erred while not granting any compensation on account of loss of income during
hospitalization as well as for future loss of income. He also argued that the learned
Tribunal erred while holding that the medical bills pertain
pertaining
ing to the physiotherapy
treatment taken by the appellant in Canada were not proved and thus, wrongly
2 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
denied. He further argued that the compensation under conventional heads was
also on the lower side and thus, liable to be enhanced.
[6]. On the other hand, learned couns
counsel
el representing respondent
No.2/Insurance
nsurance Company
ompany submitted that appellant had been adequately
compensated and thus, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
parties, perused paper-book and
record of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the appellant.
Discussion
On the aspect of enhancement of compensation
Assessment under "loss
" of income and future
uture loss of Income"
[8]. In the present case, at the time of motor vehicular accident, appellant
happened to be a student of 18 years of age
age, who suffered 80% permanent
disability (Ex.P-4A)
(Ex.P 4A) due to injuries received by him on the fateful day. Even
though neither any income proof of the appellant was produced with the claim
petition, nor the same was ever proved during the proceedings in the Tribunal or
even before this Court, however, relying upon the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "V. MekalaVs. M. Malathi and another",
another"
reported as (2014) 11 SCC 178,
178, whereby the income of a student of class 11th,
injured in a road accident which took place in the year 2005, was taken as
Rs.10,000/- per month. Relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereunder:
hereunder:-
"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/
6,000/- as 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
3 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
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
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
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
a Murthy v. The Manager, Oriental Insurance
2471,, the relevant
Company Ltd and Anr., ILR 2004 Karnataka 2471
paragraph of which reads as under :
"41. .... Further, it needs to be emphasised that it is not the right of
the tortfeasor or a person who has taken ov
over
er 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, it does not
matter, may be with pain and discomfort, in order to minimise his or
its liability. Such insistence
nce is untenable in law and if such is the
case, it would violate basic human rights of the injured person. In
this case, the appellant is reduced 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, 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 So
Sons
ns Limited and Blair v.
FJC Lilley (Marine) Limited.. Secondly, the physical incapacity to
earn income sustained by the appellant is not temporary, but
permanent and complete as per Exhibit P. 43. Thirdly, it cannot be
said that since the appellant has sust
sustained
ained only 54% permanent
physical disability in respect of the whole body as per P.W. 3, the
Court should take into account functional disability also at 54% only
4 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
while assessing the loss of earning capacity. Such hypothesis does
not stand to reason nor can
n 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 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 li
limb
mb 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 pain and
suffering: the loss of the good things of life, joys of life and the
positive infliction of pain and distress.
distress."
18. Further, it has been held in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) that
certain relevant 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 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 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 natu
nature
re of
employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for
any court to lay down 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 wor
workk 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/-
10,000/ as her monthly notional income for
computation of just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of
income......"
5 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "S. Vasanthi. & Anr. vs
Another", reported as 2022 (4)
M/s AdhiparasakthiEngg. College and Another"
837, held that in case of death of a student, income
R.C.R. (Civil) 837,
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
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. Sathiyanarayanand
also his young age at the time of the accident, we are of the
considered view that the Tribunal and the High Court have er
erred
red 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......."
Furthermore, thee Hon'ble Supreme 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: -
254,
"14. On completion of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from
the prestigious
gious institute like BIT, it can 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
0 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
h
been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and would have at
least 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......."
6 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
Therefore, considering the facts of the present case wherein the
motor vehicular accident took place in the year 2006 and relying on V.
Mekala' S. Vasanthi and Arvind Kumar Mishra's cases (supra), this
Court in its humble opinion holds that income of the appellant could be
conservatively taken as Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000/ per month.
[8.1]. A perusal of discharge summary (Ex.P4) shows that the appellant was
admitted to Silver Oaks Hospital, S.A.S Nagar (Mohali) from 27.01.2006 to
t
24.02.2006 (29 days). Thus, loss of income during hospitalization needs to be
assessed as Rs.10,000 (rounded off).
In cases involving permanent physical disability, while assessing
future loss of income, actual functional disability of the injured needs to be taken
into account and in the present case a perusal of disability certificate (Ex.P4
(Ex.P4--A)
showed that the appellant suffered fracture in D
D-11
11 (spinal) with spastic
paraparesis and fracture in right distal with restriction of wrist movement resul
resulting
ting
into paralysis in lower parts of the body. Even, Dr. Rohit Jindal while appearing as
PW-2deposed
2deposed that the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant rendered him
80% permanently disable in relation to whole body. Further, appellant in his claim
petition
tion and affidavit (Ex.PW3/A)specifically stated that due to the nature of his
injuries, being bedridden, he was unable to continue with his education and this
fact could not be controverted by the respondents, thus, the functional disability
needs to be assessed
ssessed @ 100%.
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Sidram
Sidram vs Divisional
Ltd.", reported as 2023 (3) SCC 439, held
Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd.",
that future prospects have to be given even in cases wherein victim suffered
permanent disability.
disability. Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereunder:
hereunder:-
7 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
"31. It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of
permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor
motor-accident,
accident, the
claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income,
amounts for future prospects as well. We have come acr
across
oss many orders of
different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts,
taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future
prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in
permanent disablement.
disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no
justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects
in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies
altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in
accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of
the victim's death."
Therefore, in view of Sidram's case (supra), this Court in its humble
opinion while adding future prospects assesses the loss of future income as
Rs. 30,24,000/- {10,000 (100% functional disability)+ 40% (future prospects) = 14000 x
18 x 12}.
Assessment under "other pecuniary heads"
[9]. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that learned Tribunal
erred while discarding medical bills (Rs.1,26,000/
(Rs.1,26,000/-)) pertaining to physiotherapy
treatment availed by the appellant in Physio-Logic
Physio Logic Neurological Rehabilitation,
North York Clinic, 265 Yorkland Blvd Toranto, Canada (Ex.P108 to P131) while
holding that these were never legally proved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Anita
Anita Sharma and others vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and
another", reported as 2021 (1) SCC171,, held that the standard of proof in motor
accident claim cases isbased on principles of preponderance of probability rather
than beyond reasonable doubt. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder: -
8 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
"22. Equally, we are concerned over the fai
failure
lure of the High Court to be
cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of
proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The
standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of
probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be
mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in
accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non
non-examination
examination of
some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal tr
trial;
ial; but, instead
should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to
ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. A
somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier
Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 wherein this Court reiterated that:
"7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on
the part of the first respondent who was driving the pickup van as set
up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned
Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla
Devi v. Himachal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] )"
Therefore, in view of exposition of law laid down in Anita Sharma's
case (supra), this
is Court in its humble opinion holds that the learned Tribunal ought
to have considered and accepted the physiotherapy/medical bills (Ex.P108 to
P131). This fact is even bolstered by the proof of travel (Air tickets and foreign
currency exchange bills) annexed
annexed by the appellant (Ex.P132 to P137) which clearly
showed that appellant travelled to Canada to receive medical treatment. Thus,
appellant is held entitled for compensation for Rs. 1,26,000/
1,26,000/- in lieu of
physiotherapy/medical treatment received by him in Canada and for the
disregarded medical bills (Ex. P42 to P45) to Rs.3,100/
Rs.3,100/- in addition to the
compensation for medical treatment as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
9 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
[9.1]. Further, as evident from the record, appellant continued to undergo
physiotherapy
y after discharge from the hospital and even went on to Canada for
receiving specialized physiotherapy treatment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of "Abhimanyu Partap Singh vs Namita Sekhon & Another"
Another", reported as 2022
(3) R.C.R (Civil) 557 held that in cases where physiotherapy treatment is required
then multiplier system should be used. Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced
hereunder: -
"19. Similarly for medical expenses in the head of physiotherapy required
to the claimant, the Tribunal awarded Rs
Rs.2,88,000/- @ Rs.50 per day. The
High Court granted lumpsum amount of Rs.8,00,000/
Rs.8,00,000/- including the
expenses for diapers. In our considered opinion, the said amount is not
adequate. In these days the physiotherapist would charge at least Rs.150/-
Rs.150/
per day to treat the patient for one hour which monthly comes to Rs.4,500/-
Rs.4,500/
and annually 54,000/-,
54,000/ , applying the multiplier of 18, the amount in the
head of physiotherapy charges comes to Rs.9,72,000/
Rs.9,72,000/-.. For the purpose of
use of diapers, regular medical check
check-up and medical
edical expenses if we
further add Rs.2,00,000/-
Rs.2,00,000/ then in the head of future medical expenses the
amount comes to Rs.11,72,000/-."
Rs.11,72,000/
Therefore, after placing reliance on Abhimanyu's case (supra) which
was decided in the year 2022, the physiotherapy charge
chargess in present case is
conservatively taken as Rs.5,000/-
Rs.5,000/ per month and thus, appellant is held entitled for
compensation under the head of physiotherapy charges and it is assessed as
Rs.10,80,000/- (5000 X 12 X 18).
18)
[9.2]. Upon perusal of copy of discharge summary (Ex.P4), travel bills
(Ex.P132 to P137) and the averments made in affidavit of appellant, it is evident
that he was admitted in hospital for 29 days; received follow up treatment in
10 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
Canada, therefore, compensation under the head of transportation and
special/nutritious diet is cumulatively assessed as Rs.1,50,000/
Rs.1,50,000/-.
[9.3]. In the present case, appellant having suffered 80% permanent
disability resulting into paralysis in the lower parts of the body would require
lifelong attendant but before assessing the attendant charges we need to look into
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand", reported as (2020) 4 SCC 413,, whereby it was held that in cases where
attendant is required
required even after discharge from the hospital, multiplier method
could be used for assessing attendant charges. Relevant excerpt thereof is
reproduced hereunder: -
"22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court
@ Rs 2,500/-
2,500/ per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs 13,20,000/-.
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 11.. 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
issu
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 award of `just compensation'
compensation' within the meaning of the Act."
Also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhimanyu's case (supra), while
assessing attendant charges in a case arising out of an accident relating to the year
11 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
1996 assessed the attendant charges @ Rs. 5,000/
5,000/- per month while
hile deciding the
case in the year 2022. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder: -
"18. 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/
Rs.1,92,000/- in the head of attendant
charges @ 1,000/-
1,000/ per month. While the High Court proceeded on the
premises that the rate of the attendant char
charges
ges is variable after every five
years, however, the Court calculated the amount @ Rs.2,000/
Rs.2,000/- thereafter @
Rs.4,000/ per month for a period of 20 years and accordingly determined
Rs.4,000/-
Rs.9,00,000/ making enhancement of Rs.7,08,000/
Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.7,08,000/- in the said head. As
discussed, if we apply the multiplier method and in view of the judgment of
discussed,
Kajal (supra), we accept the rate of attendant charges Rs.5000/
Rs.5000/- per month
for 12 hours, looking to the nature of injuries and disability the claimant is
required two attendants at least
least within 24 hours then the expenses in the
head of attendant charges comes to Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/- per month. If we apply the
multiplier of 18, the amount comes to Rs.21,60,000/
Rs.21,60,000/-."
Therefore, while placing reliance on Abhimanyu's case (supra) and
Kajal's case (supra),
upra), this Court in its humble opinion holds that attendant charges
needs to be assessed as Rs.5,500/-
Rs.5,500/ (per month) and thus, compensation for
attendant charges by applying multiplier of 18 is assessed as Rs.11,88,000/
Rs.11,88,000/- (5500
X 12 X 18).
Assessment under 'non-pecuniary heads'
[10]. In motor accident cases, determining the value of pain and suffering is
a complex process which involves consideration of various factors and their
12 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
subjective assessment. Unlike economic damages such as medical expenses or lost
wages, which can be calculated based on objective evidence; pain and suffering
damages 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 Supreme Court in the case of "K.S. Muralidhar vs R. Subbulakshmi &
Anr.",, reported as 2025 AIR Supreme Court 70
70, held as under: -
"15. Keeping in view the above-referred
above referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the
`pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long
life long nature of the disability afflicted upon
the claimant-appellant,
claimant appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduce
reproduced
d above, we
find the request of the claimant-appellant
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
Rs.15,00,000/-
the prayer of the claimant-appellant
claimant appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a
sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-,
10,00,000/ , we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at
the amount so awarded."
Therefore, in the present case, appellant is held entitled for
compensation on account of permanent disability as well as "pain and sufferings"
suffered
red by him to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/
Rs.15,00,000/- after placing reliance on K.S
Muralidhar's case (supra).
Further, considering the stigma associated with permanent disability
resulting into diminished marital prospects the appellant needs to be compensated
under this head. After placing reliance on a recent judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
ca of "Deepak Singh Alias Deepak Chauhan vs
Kumar", Civil Appeal No. 2255 of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4099
Mukesh Kumar",
13 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
of 2025 @ Diary no.236/2024),in the given facts and circumstances of the present
case the appellant is held entitled for compensation tto the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-- on
account of "loss of marriage prospects".
Conclusion
[11]. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the
appellant/claimant
/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following
manner:-
Sr.No. Nature Amount in
Rupees
1. Loss of Income and Loss of future Income Rs.30,34,000/
30,34,000/-
(Rs.10,000 +Rs.30,24,000)
2. Medical treatment {Rs.4,79,024 as awarded Rs.6,08,124/-
by ld. Tribunal + Rs.1,26,000 (discarded
physiotherapy charges) + Rs.3,100 (discarded
bills)}
3. Pain and Suffering Rs.15,00,000/-
Rs.15,00,000/
4. Loss of Marriage Prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
5. Transportation and nutritious diet Rs.1,50,000/-
6. Physiotherapy Charges Rs.10,84,000/-
Rs.10,84,000/
7. Attendant Charges Rs.11,88,000/-
Rs.11,88,000/
Total Compensation Rs.80,60,124/-
Rs.80,60,124/
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.8,47,024/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.72,13,100/-
Rs.72,13,100/
[12]. The grant of interest @ 7.5%
% per annum is not 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,
14 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042669
2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 the interest is enhanced @ to 9% per annum on the
amount of compensation awarded to the appellant/
appellant/claimant
claimant from the date of
institution of claim petition till its realization but excluding the period of delay in
filing of the present
prese appeal. Needless to mention here that the amount of
compensation already paid to the appellant/claim
claimant shall be deducted from the
enhanced compensation.
[13]. Accordingly, the appeal filed at the instance of appellant is allowed
with aforesaid modification/enhancement of the award passed by the learned
Tribunal. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
March 24, 2025
5 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
15 of 15
