Babli @ Rajwanti and Anr v. Satyawan Saharawat and Ors

IN T

BABLI @ RAJ

SATYAWAN S

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Ms Mr

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The

02.08.2005 pass Act, 1988 by th Tribunal') vide dismissed. FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri going for taking when he reach Bahadurgarh, a side came there negligent mann

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

-.-

FA

Da JWANTI AND ANR

Versus SAHARAWAT AND ORS N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate the appellant(s). s. Simran, Advocate for r. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for re -.-

HARMA, J. e present appeal has been pref sed in the claim petition under he learned Motor Accident Claim which, the claim petition filed N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that o g milk on his bicycle to village hed near Krishana Akhara on truck bearing registration No. e. The driver of the truck was ner. The truck hit Ashok Kumar

JAB AND HARYANA ARH

AO-2782-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision : 15.10.2024

....APPELLANTS

....RESPONDENTS EEPTI SHARMA espondent No.3. ferred against the judgment da Section 166 of the Motor Vehic ms Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short, d by the claimants/appellants w on 20.10.2000, Ashok Kumar w Siddipur Lova. It was about 3. n main road of Siddipur Lo HR-46-A/1928 from the oppo s driving the truck in a rash r as a result of which he suffe

ated cles 'the was was .15, ova, site

grievous injurie about 24 years. Rs.12,000/- pe Caimants/petitio Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

5.

Vid framed.

6.

Aft record, the lear appellants filed

es and died on the spot. It is a He was engaged in the busines er month. A sum Rs.20,000/ oners filed the present petitio on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties, "1. Whether deceased As vehicle accident on 20.10.20 Akhara, Bahadurgarh, in a been caused due to rash an HR-16-A-1928 by responden

¶2If issue No.1 is proved, to claimant is entitled to? OPP

¶3Whether respondent No. licence at the time of acciden Relief." de order dated 26.8.2003, an "3-A. Whether the respond driver of the vehicle at the tim ter hearing learned counsel for rned Tribunal dismissed the cla the present appeal for grant of co

lleged that the deceased was a ss of sale of milk. He was earn /- was spent on his last ri on claiming the compensation , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow shok Kumar expired in a mo 000 at about 3.15 a.m. near Krish motor vehicle accident which h nd negligent driving of vehicle N nt No.1 Satyawan? OPP. o what amount of compensation, 1 had no legal and valid driv nt? OPR-3 additional issue No.3-A was a dent No.2 was not the authori me of accident? OPR-3.". the parties and perusing the wh aim petition. Hence, the claiman ompensation.

ged ning ites. of nied wing otor han had No. ving also ised hole nts-

SUBMISSIONS

7.

Lea the appellants is was an eye wit appellants that manner.

8.

Per that the driver admitted that h insurance comp contends that e authorized drive to pay any comp

9.

I h record of this ca

S OF THE COUNSEL FOR T arned counsel for the appellants s dismissed only on the ground tness could not be relied upon respondent No.2 was driving r contra, learned for the respon Mukesh Kumar (respondent N e had committed the theft of t pany would not be liable to p even the learned Tribunal hel er of the vehicle and as such insu pensation. She prays for dismiss have heard learned counsel for ase. Relevant portion of the judgm "Issue No.1:- Drawing my attention to the and Surte (PW3) and the learned counsel for the petit testimonies these witnesses, record that respondent No.2 negligent manner and he h further argued that petitione respondent No.1 is facing th Law is well settled that prosecuted under Section 30

HE PARTIES contends that the claim petition that testimony of PW-3 Surte, w n and no evidence was led by the truck in a rash and neglig ndent-Insurance Company conte No.2) in his disclosure statem the offending truck. Therefore, pay the compensation. She furt ld that respondent No.2 was urance company would not be lia sal of the claim petition. the parties and perused the wh ment is reproduced hereunder:- e testimonies of Hari Kishan (PW copy of the FIR, Mr. R.K.V tioners argued that on the basis , it the stands established on was driving the truck in a rash a had caused the accident. Coun ers have proved on the record t he trial under Section 304-A IP the driver of the vehicle be 04-A, IPC, is prima facie proof

n of who gent nds ment ther not able hole W2) Vats, s of nsel that PC. eing

the fact that he was rash findings on issue No.1 be ret

¶11On the other hand, M respondent No.3 argued tha to establish that respondent N he was rash and negligent submitted that the only ev petitioners is the testimony o testimony has deposed that a a.m. he was going to answe going ahead on him. Cyclis died in the accident. Cou testimony has also deposed the registration number of th that in fact a reading of th show that he had not wi submitted that in fact there respondent No.2 was drivin negligent.

¶12I have duly considered

¶13Petitioners have exam witnesses, Surte (PW3) in hi four years back at about 4-0 call of nature. A cyclist wa come a truck from the opp cyclist. Mukesh had died on

h and negligent. Accordingly, turned in favour of the petitioner Mr. Kadian, learned counsel at petitioners have miserably fai No.2 was driving the truck and t while driving the same. Coun vidence that has been led by of Surte (PW3). Surte (PW3) in about four years back at about 4 er the call of nature. A cyclist w st was Mukesh Kumar and he h unsel submitted that Surte in

(PW3) that tractor driver had t he truck to him. Mr Kadian argu e testimony of Surte (PW3) wo itnessed the occurrence. Coun is no evidence on the record t ng the truck and he was rash a d the rival contentions. mined Surte (PW3), the alleged e is testimony has deposed that ab 00 a.m. he was going to answer as going ahead of him. There h posite side. The truck had hit n the spot. The tractor driver h

rs. for iled that nsel his 4-00 was had his told ued ould nsel that eye-bout had

noticed the registration num about the same to him. He in to the police. In the cross-ex was at a distance of about o of the considered viewн that occurrence. He is not even a and that of the truck driver number of the truck. Apart evidence that respondent No was rash and negligent in dr this issue against the petition Issues No.3 & 3-А,

¶14Both these issues are in taken up them together dis evidence respondent No.2 w respondent No.1 on the truc respondents have proved on of respondent No.2 before th deposed that he had brough Versus Mukesh bearing FIR 304-A, IPC, Police station Verma (RW1) proved on th (Ex.R1). A reading of disclo Mukesh Kumar, respondent that he had committed the th question had met with an ac

mber of the truck and had inform n term had informed about the sa xamination he had deposed that one acre from Mukesh Kumar. I Surte (PW3) had not witnessed aware of the name of the decea . He did not know the registrat from this, petitioners have led .2 was driving the truck and that riving the same. Accordingly, I f ners. nter-connected. Accordingly, I h scussion. Petitioners have led was employed as driver for that ck in question. On the other ha the record the disclosure statem he police. Bhupender Verma (RW t the record of the case titled St R No.358/2000, under Sections 2 n, City Bahadurgarh. Bhupen he record the disclosure statem osure statement (Ex.R1) shows t t No.2 had mentioned in the sa eft of the truck and that the truck ccident. This shows that respond

med ame t he am ased tion d no t he find ave t by ment W1) tate 279, nder ment that ame k in

ANALYSIS OF

10.

A p that respondent had caused the a record that resp well settled that IPC, is prima fa the findings on Since responden I decide issue respondent No.2

11.

Shr he had brought No.358/2000, u Bhupender Verm respondent No.2

No.2 was not an authorised d

(PW1) in his testimony has Mukesh Kumar was not atta above-discussion, I hereby h authorised driver of the ve company i.e. respondent N compensation. However, r establish that respondent N valid driving licence. I find i and issue No.3-A in favour of F RECORD. perusal of the record shows that No.2 was driving the truck in a accident. Counsel further argued pondent No.1 is facing the trial t the driver of the vehicle being acie proof of the fact that he wa issue No.1 are liable to be ret nt No.2 was not holding a legal a No.3 against respondent No.3

¶2ri Bhupender Verma was examin t the record of the case titled S under Sections 279, 304-A, IPC ma (RW1) proved on the record 2 as Ex.R1. A reading of disclo

driver of the vehicle. Vinod Shar deposed that the driving licence ached with the file. In view of hold that respondent No.2 was ehicle and as such the insura No.3 is not liable to pay a respondent No.3 has failed No.2 was not holding a legal a issue No.3 against respondent N of respondent No.2." t it stands established on the rec a rash and negligent manner and d that petitioners have proved on under Section 304-A IPC. Law g prosecuted under Section 304 as rash and negligent. According turned in favour of the petition and valid driving licence, therefo 3 and Issue No.3-A in favour ned as RW-1, who deposed that State Versus Mukesh bearing F , Police station, City Bahadurga d the disclosure statement made osure statement (Ex.R1) shows t

rma e of not nce any to No.3 cord d he w is 4-A, gly, ers. ore, r of t he FIR arh. e by

Mukesh Kumar theft of the truck SETTLED LAW

12.

Ho compensation w RajKumar Vs. has held as unde Gen

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

r, respondent No.2 had mention k and the truck in question had m W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court has set with respect to the disability. Ajay Kumar and Another (20 er:- 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 70 Supreme Court 376, R.D. H d., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v

ned therein that he had commit met with an accident. ttled the law regarding grant The Apex Court in the case 011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 3 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 Hattangadi v. Pest Control (Ind v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).

tted t of e of 343, ort) that tely ct of t of tion e of y to h he be njoy ould AIR dia)

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

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

19.

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. xxx

xxx We may now summarise the pr

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 xxx

xxx rinciples discussed above :

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

(i) A res

(ii) who loss ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub evid ear Tri

(iv) of l nat fac

¶20wit Illu ear evid inju per how

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 ury was 60% and the consequ rson was quantified at 30%. wever assessed by the Tribunal

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 uential permanent disability to The loss of earning capacity l as 15% on the basis of eviden

not e of s of nent s of him give s of ages ther low or's f the y is nce,

bec gra Illu is a lon Tri 75% Illu Eng two The inc ass cap wil

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 capacitated to pursue his chose sistance of a servant throughout pacity was also assessed as 70% ll be as follows :

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

wer Rs. ility d no leak The y as year for ted. was ning

a) M hav Eng b) L (70 c) M d) L [No hyp act

13.

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

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

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 " Therefore, we think it seems to us that reasonabl namely, loss of estate, loss o should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40

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:- t seemly to fix reasonable sums le figures on conventional hea of consortium and funeral expen 0,000 and Rs.15,000 respectiv

are on any nder wing mine of rent s. It ads, nses

14.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age Ins effe Tra gro fac for con app

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. The aforesaid position is not the respondent State Corpora nclusion that the multiplier to pellant has to be '18' and not '17

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

t really disputed by learned coun ation and, thus, we come to o be applied in the case of 7'.

able um-that s in e of d so ose tate us: s of onal ACJ nch d in elhi age with

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel jud mu qua disa

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 ltiplier method was logically so antify the loss of income as ability suffered in an accident.

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 ound and legally well established a result of death or perman

nent med t in deep ract ples t or over t; ther y be rlier d to

disa occ und

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 advancement in life and c consideration. We are, thus, unequivo in the contention of the app with regard to future prospec

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 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

n 8 gust t as ant, tate urt. has that on into erit ples

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:

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

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 Awarded Rs. 9,81,978/-Rs.4,90,989/-Rs.18,46,864/-Rs.5,00,000/-

The t in ally d be d as ered % in sh's ious nce ates tled , as

Rs. per RELIEF

15.

In v

02.08.2005 is s down by Hon'b are held entitled Sr. No. Mon Futu Ded exp

¶4Tota Mul Ann Los Fun Los

Tot

16.

So Court in Dara S

Loss of comfort, loss of amenities 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 et aside. Accordingly, as per th ble Supreme Court as mentioned d to the compensation amount as Heads nthly Income Rs ure prospects @ 40% Rs duction towards personal enditure Rs al Income Rs ltiplier nual Dependency Rs (R s of Estate Rs neral Expenses Rs s of Consortium Rs tal Compensation Rs far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy

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 appellants - claima calculated below: Compensation Awarded s.3000/- s.1200/- (40% of 3000) s.050/- [1/4 of (3000+1200)] s.3150/- (4200-1050) s.6,80,400/- Rs.3150/- x 12 x 18) s.18,000/- s.18,000/- s.1,92,000/- s.9,08,400/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31

n of f 9% ated laid ants

and R.Valli and Supreme Cour 9% per annum o of its realization

17.

The compensation al from today. T compensation al per ratio settled directed to furni

18.

Dis

19.

Pen

October 15, 202 A.Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r

d Others VS. Tamil Nandu State rt Cases 107, the appellants-cla on the amount from the date of n. e Insurance Company is dire long with interest with the Tribu The Tribunal is further direc long with interest in the accoun d in the award dated 02.08.20 ish the bank account details to th sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

(

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No

te Transport Corporation (2022 aimants are granted the interest filing of claim petition till the d ected to deposit the amount unal within a period of two mon cted to disburse the amount nts of all the claimants/appellants

¶005The claimants/appellants he Tribunal. tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng

2) 5 t @ date of nths of s as