Kulwinder Singh v. Balraj Singh and Others

218-A IN T

Kulwinder Sing

Balraj Singh Gil

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Mr for

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

enhancement of Tribunal, Patial Section 166 of t awarded compen FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri appellant was g 03A-3444, as pi At about 5.00 p. and reached nea Maruti Car bear

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA

Da h

Versus ll and Others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.H.S. Dhandi, Advocate the appellant. r. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate the respondent No.2-Insurance C -.-

HARMA, J. e instant appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th la (for short, 'the Tribunal') vi the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w nsation of Rs.1,30,750/- along w N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that going alongwith his wife Mand illion rider from their village Tas .m., when they were returning to ar village Chuni Kalan, after cr ring No. PB-10-AK-6541 (Temp

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-2052-2007 (O&M) ate of Decision : 19.09.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA Company. erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Clai de award dated 08.03.2007 un whereby the claimant/appellant w with interest @ 9% per annum. on 29.6.2003, Kulwinder Sin deep Kaur on motor-cycle No.C sauli to Gurdwara Fatehgarh Sah o their village from Fatehgarh Sa rossing village Badali Ali Singh p) driven by respondent No.1 ras

for ims nder was ngh-CH-hib. ahib h, a

and negligently opposite side. O Singh slow dow left side, but th Kulwinder Sing down and suffe damaged. Mand the body. It is negligent drivin (Temp.). Mande (Kulwinder Sing police officials blank papers an false DDR No.1 treatment and R month by runnin

3.

On factum of comp

4.

Fro issues:-

, in a zig zag manner, without On seeing the said car coming wn his motor cycle and turned it o he driver of the car struck th gh. Due to this accident, Kulwin ered multiple grievous injuries. deep Kaur suffered injuries on h further stated that the acciden ng of respondent No.1 while dri eep Kaur was brought to PGI, C gh) where they remained admitte came and obtained the signatu nd had taken no legal action aga 11 dated 30.6.2003 was recorded Rs.50000/- on removal of iron ro ng Saw Mill, Dairy Farming and n notice of the claim petitions, re ensation. om the pleading of the parties, "1. Whether claimant had rash and negligent driving o 10-BB-6186 by respondent N

¶2Whether the claimant is e so, to what amount and from

blowing any horn came from from the opposite side, Kulwin on the kacha berm of the road on he car against the motor cycle nder Singh and Mandeep Kaur Their motor cycle was also ba her left leg, head and other parts nt had taken place due to rash iving the car No. PB-10-AK-65 Chandigarh along with her husb ed till 14.07.2003. On the next d ures of Kulwinder Singh on so ainst the driver of the car, rathe d. He spent Rs.150000/- on med od. He was earning Rs.20000/- d Agriculture. espondents appeared and denied the Tribunal framed the follow d suffered injuries on account of Car bearing Registration No.P No.1 on 29.6.2003, as alleged ? entitled to grant of compensation m whom? OPP

nder n its e of fell adly s of and and day, ome er a ical per wing t of PB-n, if

5.

Aft record, the lear interest @ 9% p enhancement of SUBMISSIONS

6.

amount assessed

He the extent of 28 certificates are p

He treatment but th lower side.

He and suffering an lower side.

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

I h record of this ca

¶3Whether respondent No. licence at the time of alleged

¶4Relief." ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compens per annum. Hence the claimant/a f compensation awarded by the T S OF THE COUNSEL FOR T e learned counsel for the clai d by the learned Tribunal is on th further contends that the appella % regarding dental injury and 10 produced on record as Exs.P-89 a further contends that appellant he learned Tribunal has granted further contends that the Tribun nd Rs.75000/- for the permane r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 08.03.20 n. have heard learned counsel for ase.

1 was not holding a valid driv d accident, if so its effect ? OPR he pleadings and the evidence sation of Rs.1,30,750/- along w appellant filed the present appeal Tribunal. HE PARTIES imant-appellant contends that he lower side. ant suffered permanent disability 0% on his left leg and the disabi and P-99. has spent Rs.1,50,000/- on medi d only Rs.45783/- which is on nal has awarded Rs.5000/- for p ent disability, which is also on ent-Insurance Company argues t 007 has rightly assessed the amo the parties and perused the wh

ving on with for y to ility ical pain that ount

9.

accordance with of Punjab. SETTLED LAW

10.

Ho compensation w Kumar Vs. Aja held as under:- Gen

¶5ma com res awa wro equ dam or disa be suff com tho inju hav

e income of the appellant to be h the minimum wages prescribed W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court has set with respect to the disability. T ay Kumar and Another (2011) neral principles relating to comp The provision of the Motor Ve kes it clear that the award mpensation should, to the exte tore the claimant to the position arding damages is to make goo ong done as far as money can uitable manner. The court or mages objectively and exclude f fancy, though some conjecture ability and its consequences, is compensated for the physical inj ffered as a result of such inju mpensated for his inability to le ose normal amenities which he uries, and his inability to earn a ve earned. (See C.K. Subramoni

assessed as Rs.2500/- per month d for unskilled workers in the St ttled the law regarding grant The Apex Court in the case of ) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, mpensation in injury cases Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for sho must be just, which means t ent possible, fully and adequa prior to the accident. The objec od the loss suffered as a result n do so, in a fair, reasonable a tribunal shall have to assess from consideration any speculat e with reference to the nature inevitable. A person is not only njury, but also for the loss which ury. This means that he is to ead a full life, his inability to en e would have enjoyed but for as much as he used to earn or co ia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, A

h in tate t of Raj has ort) that tely ct of t of and tion e of y to h he be njoy ould

Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

(vi) In r und whe of t hea acc am exp

70 Supreme Court 376, R.D. H d., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v The heads under which com ury cases are the following : cuniary damages (Special Dama Expenses relating to treatm nsportation, nourishing food, an Loss of earnings (and other ga de had he not been injured, comp

(a) Loss of earning during th

(b) Loss of future earnings on ) Future medical expenses. N mages) ) Damages for pain, suffering an uries. Loss of amenities (and/or loss of ) Loss of expectation of life (shor routine personal injury cases, c der heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It ere there is specific medical ev the claimant, that compensation ads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) rel count of permanent disability, enities (and/or loss of prosp pectation of life.

Hattangadi v. Pest Control (Ind v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467). mpensation is awarded in perso ages) ment, hospitalization, medicin nd miscellaneous expenditure. ains) which the injured would h mprising : he period of treatment; n account of permanent disabilit Non-pecuniary damages (Gene nd trauma as a consequence of of prospects of marriage). rtening of normal longevity). compensation will be awarded o t is only in serious cases of inju vidence corroborating the evide n will be granted under any of lating to loss of future earnings future medical expenses, loss pects of marriage) and loss

dia) onal nes, ave ty. eral f the only ury, ence f the s on s of

19.

(i) A res

(ii) who loss ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub evid ear Tri

(iv) of l nat fac

¶20wit Illu ear evid

xxx

xxx We may now summarise the pr All injuries (or permanent disab ult in loss of earning capacity. The percentage of permanen ole body of a person, cannot b s of earning capacity. To put it d rning capacity is not the same ability (except in a few cases, w dence, concludes that percentag me as percentage of permanent d ) The doctor who treated an inju bsequently to assess the extent of dence only in regard the extent rning capacity is something tha ibunal with reference to the evide ) The same permanent disability loss of earning capacity in diffe ture of profession, occupation ctors. The assessment of loss of fu th reference to the following ustration 'A' : The injured, a w rning Rs. 3000/- per month at th dence, the permanent disability

xxx

xxx rinciples discussed above : bilities arising from injuries), do nt disability with reference to e assumed to be the percentage differently, the percentage of loss e as the percentage of perman where the Tribunal on the basis ge of loss of earning capacity is disability). ured-claimant or who examined h of his permanent disability can g of permanent disability. The loss at will have to be assessed by ence in entirety. may result in different percenta ferent persons, depending upon or job, age, education and ot uture earnings is explained bel workman, was aged 30 years a he time of accident. As per Docto of the limb as a consequence of

not e of s of nent s of him give s of ages ther low and or's

inju per how bec gra Illu is a lon and Tri 75% Illu Eng two

ury was 60% and the consequ rson was quantified at 30%. wever assessed by the Tribunal cause the claimant is continue ade. Calculation of compensation a) Annual income before the b) Loss of future earning per (15% of the prior annual inc c) Multiplier applicable with d) Loss of future earnings : ( ustration 'B' : The injured was a 00/- per month. His hand is amp assessed at 60%. He was termi nger drive. His chances of gettin d even if he got any job, the sala ibunal therefore assessed his lo %. Calculation of compensation a) Annual income prior to th b) Loss of future earning per (75% of the prior annual inc c) Multiplier applicable with d) Loss of future earnings : ( ustration 'C' : The injured w gineering student. As a result of o months, his right hand was a e permanent disablement was as

uential permanent disability to The loss of earning capacity l as 15% on the basis of eviden ed in employment, but in a low n will be as follows: e accident : Rs. 36,000/-. r annum come) : Rs. 5400/-. h reference to age : 17 (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/- a driver aged 30 years, earning putated and his permanent disabi inated from his job as he could ng any other employment was bl ary was likely to be a pittance. T oss of future earning capacity will be as follows : e accident : Rs. 36,000/- . r annum come) : Rs. 27000/-. h reference to age : 17 (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/- was 25 years and a final y of the accident, he was in coma amputated and vision was affect ssessed as 70%. As the injured w

y is nce, wer Rs. ility d no leak y as year for ted.

inc ass cap wil a) M hav Eng b) L (70 c) M d) L [No hyp act

11.

Ho Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sections 166, 1 aspects:-

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age

capacitated to pursue his chose sistance of a servant throughout pacity was also assessed as 70% ll be as follows : Minimum annual income he wou ve got if had been employed as a gineer

Loss of future earning per annum 0% of the expected annual incom Multiplier applicable (25 years) Loss of future earnings : (42000 ote : The figures adopted in pothetical. The figures in Illust tuals taken from the decision in A n'ble Supreme Court in the case y Sethi &Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 63-A and 168 of the Motor Ve ) Deduction of personal an ultiplicand; ) Selection of multiplier depen ) Age of deceased on basis for ) Reasonable figures on con ate, loss of consortium and funer ) Future prospects for all cate es: with permanent job; self-emp e relevant portion of the judgmen

en career and as he required t his life, the loss of future earn %. The calculation of compensat uld an

: Rs. 60,000/-m me) : Rs. 42000/-

: 18 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-n illustrations (A) and (B) tration (C) however are based Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)]. e of National Insurance Compa C 680] has clarified the law un ehicles Act, 1988, on the follow nd living expenses to determ nding on age of deceased; r applying multiplier; nventional heads, namely, loss ral expenses, with escalation; egories of persons and for differ ployed or fixed salary. nt is reproduced as under:-

ning tion are on any nder wing mine of

12.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age Ins effe Tra gro fac

" Therefore, we think it seems to us that reasonabl namely, loss of estate, loss o should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40 The principle of revisiting principle. But the revisit sho centric. We think that it wou we have quantified should b every three years and the en 10% in a span of three yea because that will bring in heads." n'ble Supreme Court in the ca Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has

¶7There are three aspects which the application of multiplier of The aforesaid increase of m e of the appellant as 23 years re urance Company Limited v. Pr 00 (SC). In para 46 of the said ectively affirmed the multiplier m e table in the case of Sarla V ansport Corporation and Anothe oup of 15-25 years, the multi ctoring in the extent of disability.

t seemly to fix reasonable sums le figures on conventional hea of consortium and funeral expen 0,000 and Rs.15,000 respectiv the said heads is an accepta uld not be fact-centric or quantu uld be condign that the amount t be enhanced on percentage basis nhancement should be at the rate ars. We are disposed to hold n consistency in respect of th ase of Erudhaya Priya Vs. St s held as under:- are required to be examined by f '17' instead of '18'; multiplier is sought on the basis elying on the judgment in Natio ranay Sethi and Others, 2017 A d judgment, the Constitution Ben method to be used as mentioned Verma (Smt) and Others v. De er, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the a iplier has to be '18' along w

s. It ads, nses ely. able um-that s in e of d so ose tate us: s of onal ACJ nch d in elhi age

for con app

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel jud

The aforesaid position is not the respondent State Corpora nclusion that the multiplier to pellant has to be '18' and not '17 Loss of earning capacity of ability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesa mpensation on what is stated to gdish v. Mohan & Others, 20 anuja v. Atul Dande & Another low the principle set out in the Ja "8. In assessing the compens need to be borne in mind. A temporary disability occasio award of compensation. The among others, the following

(i) Pain, suffering and tra

(ii) Loss of income includ

(iii) The inability of the vi with its amenities;

(iv) Medical expenses incl required to undertake

(v) Loss of expectation of The aforesaid principle has dgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanu

t really disputed by learned coun ation and, thus, we come to o be applied in the case of 7'. of the appellant with perman aid, the appellant has claim o be the settled principle set ou 018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sand r, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extr agdish (supra) in para 8: sation payable the settled princip victim who suffers a permanent ned by an accident is entitled to award of compensation must co aspects: auma resulting from the accident ding future income; ictim to lead a normal life toget luding those that the victim may in future; and f life." [emphasis supplied] also been emphasized in an ear uja case (supra) opining that

nsel nent med t in deep ract ples t or over t; ther y be

mu qua disa disa occ und

ltiplier method was logically so antify the loss of income as ability suffered in an accident. In the factual contours of th ability certificate, it shows th casions for various number of 11 to January 2013. The natur der: "Nature of injury:

(i) compound fracture sha

(ii) fracture both bones lef

(iii) compound fracture bo

(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th

(v) subtrochanteric fractu

(vi) fracture shaft femur

(vii) fracture both bones lef We have also peruse petition showing the curren though it is stated by learne Corporation that the same w Be that as it may, this is the the nature of injuries itself been opined in para 13 of S while applying the multipl

ound and legally well established a result of death or perman he present case, if we examine he admission/hospitalization on days over 1½ years from Aug re of injuries had been set out aft left humerus ft forearm th bones right forearm h metacarpals right hand ure right femur ft leg ed the photographs annexed to nt physical state of the appella ed counsel for the respondent St was not on record in the trial co e position even after treatment a f show their extent. Further, it Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) t lier method, future prospects

d to nent n 8 gust t as ant, tate urt. and has that

advancement in life and c consideration. We are, thus, unequivo in the contention of the app with regard to future prospec of the appellant taking the p quantification of the same National Insurance Co. Ltd para 61(iii), considering th 50% of the actual salary in th

(c) The third and the last as 12% In respect of the afo down the interest rate durin view of the judicial pronoun case (supra). On this aspect dispute raised by the learne the claim was confined to applied by this Court. CONCLUSION

¶8The result of the afores principles, the calculation of set out in para 5 of the syno follows:

career are also to be taken i ocally of the view that there is m pellant and the aforesaid princip cts must also be applied in the c permanent disability as 31.1%. T on the basis of the judgment d. case (supra), more specifica he age of the appellant, would he present case. spect is the interest rate claimed resaid, the appellant has wate ng the course of hearing to 9% ncements including in the Jagdis t, once again, there was no seri ed counsel for the respondent o 9% in line with the interest ra said is that relying on the sett f compensation by the appellant, opsis, would have to be adopted

into erit ples case t in ally d be d as ered % in sh's ious nce ates tled , as

Rs. per

13.

In v

08.03.2007 is m down by Hon'b held entitled to t Sr. No. Inco Futu Ann Los annu Mul

¶5Med Atte

Heads Loss of earning power (Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100 Future prospects (50 per cent addition) Medical expenses including transport charges, nourishment, etc. Loss of matrimonial prospects Loss of comfort, loss of amenities and mental agony Pain and suffering Total The appellant would, thus, 41,69,831/- as claimed along w r annum from the date of applica view of the above, the present modified. Accordingly, as per th ble Supreme Court as mentioned the compensation amount as calc Heads ome Rs ure Prospects 40% Rs nual Income Rs s of future earning per um @ 38% Rs ltiplier (16) Rs dical Rs endant Charges Rs

Awarded Rs. 9,81,978/-Rs.4,90,989/-Rs.18,46,864/-Rs.5,00,000/-Rs.1,50,000/-Rs.2,00,000/-Rs.41,69,831/-be entitled to the compensation with simple interest at the rate of ation till the date of payment. appeal is allowed and award da he settled principles of law as l d above, the appellant -claiman culated below: Compensation Awarded s.2500/-s.1000/-(40% of 2500) s.42000/-(2500+1000 x 12) s.15960/-(42000/-x 38%) s.2,55,360/- (15960 x 16) s.1,00,000/-s.10000/-

n of f 9% ated laid

Tran Pain Spe Los Tot

Am Trib

Enh

14.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and Supreme Cour per annum on th date of its realiz

15.

compensation al from today. The compensation a claimant/appella

16.

Pen

September 19, 2 A.Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r

nsportation Rs n and Sufferings Rs cial diet Rs s of amenities Rs tal Compensation Rs mount Awarded by the bunal Rs hanced amount Rs far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nandu State rt Cases 107, the appellant-claim he enhanced amount from the da zation. e Insurance Company is directed long with interest with the Tribu e Tribunal is further directed to along with interest in the accou ant is directed to furnish his bank nding applications, if any, also st 2024

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No

s.10000/- s.15,000/- s.5,000/- s.20,000/- s.4,15,360/- s.1,30,750/- s.2,84,610 /- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 te Transport Corporation (2022 mant is granted the interest @ ate of filing of claim petition till d to deposit the enhanced amoun unal within a period of two mon o disburse the enhanced amount unt of the claimant/appellant. T k account details to the Tribunal. tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng

eme 2) 5 9% nt of nths t of .