Navdeep Singh v. P.R.T.C.Etc

IN

Navdeep Singh

PRTC and other

CORAM : HON

Present: Ms Mr for

Mr for SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The enhancement of Tribunal, Patial Section 166 of t been awarded a FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri Singh alongwith Dhiman was tra 0410 driven by J correct left-han

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da

Versus rs

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE s. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for r. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate the appellant(s). r. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate respondent No.4 – Insurance Co -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th la (for short, 'the Tribunal') vi the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w compensation of Rs.13000/- alo N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that on h his wife namely, Sukhpreet Ka aveling from Chandigarh to Pa Jatinder Goel. The said Jatinder d side at a normal speed. At a

NJAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-4817-2006(O&M) ate of Decision :05.09.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA o. erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Clai de award dated 27.07.2006 un whereby the claimant/appellant ong with interest @ 9% per annum n 08.12.2002 the claimant-Navd aur and their Child, and one Raj atiala in a Maruti Car No.PB-3 Goel was driving the said car at about 7.30 pm when they reach

for ims nder has m. deep esh 1C-his

within the reven Corporation No from the oppos without followin coming on the received multip claimant-Navde indoor patient in he (Navdeep Si Amritsar and re take follow up t damaged to the Navdeep Singh as Junior Engin the claimant-Na marred. Due to

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

nue limits of village Charmarhe .PB-11-L-7902 (hereinafter refe site direction being driven in ng the traffic rules. The offendin wrong side, as a result of wh ple injuries and the car was bad eep Singh was badly damaged. T n Amar Hospital, Patiala from ingh) remained under treatment mained on complete bed rest up treatment. The right eye of the e extent of 30%, for which, he remained under agony as well a eer and now he is unable to atte avdeep Singh has also been d aforesaid injuries, he has becom on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties, " 1. Whether Navdeep Sin injuries in a motor accident due to rash and negli respondentNo.3? OPA

eri then bus Pepsu Road Transp erred to as the offending bus), ca a rash and negligent manner ng bus dashed against the car wh hich, all the occupants of the dly damaged. The right eye of The claimant remained admitted

08.12.2002 to 22.12.2002. Late of Dr. Sohan Singh Eye Hospi pto 31.01.2003 with the direction claimant-Navdeep Singh had b was operated upon. The claima as mental tension. He was work end his duties properly. The face disfigured and his future has b me physically disabled permanen , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow ngh and Sukhpreet Kaur recei t caused by bus No. PB-11-L-79 igent driving of the bus

port ame and hile car d as eron ital, n to een ant-king e of een ntly. nied wing ived

5.

Aft record, the lear alongwith intere appeal for enhan SUBMISSIONS

¶6(i) The amount assessed

(ii)

She month as per sa University, Pati accident.

(iii)

She disability.

(iv)

She compensation o and no amount medical treatme

¶2Whether the claimants N are entitled to the amount extent? OPA

¶3Whether the respondent condition of insurance policy

¶4Whether the petition is parties? OPR

¶5Relief" ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compen est @ 9% per annum. Hence the ncement of compensation awarde S OF THE COUNSELS FOR T e learned counsel for the clai d by the learned Tribunal is on th e further contends that the appe alary certificate Ex.P-37 by wor iala and the age of the appellan e further contended that the a e further contends that the lear n account of pain and suffering t was awarded for medical ex ent and loss of amenities etc.

Navdeep Singh and Sukhpreet K t of compensation? If so to w No.3 has breached the terms a y? bad for non-joinder of necess he pleadings and the evidence nsation to the tune of Rs.13,00 claimant/appellant filed the pres ed by the Tribunal. THE PARTIES imant-appellant contends that he lower side. ellant was earning Rs.14,136/- rking as Junior Engineer in Punj nt was 32 years at the time of appellant suffered 30% perman rned Tribunal has granted mea , special diet and attendant char xpenses, transport charges, fut

Kaur what and sary on 00/- sent per jabi nent ager rges

7.

Per vehemently arg rightly assessed

8.

I h record of this ca

¶9(i) A permanent disab monthly incom Rs.14,136/- per

(ii)

Fur and suffering, s amount was aw treatment and lo Court. SETTLED LAW

11.

Ho compensation w RajKumar Vs. has held as unde Gen

¶5ma com res awa

r contra, learned for gued that the learned Tribunal the amount of compensation. have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicate bility of the claimant to the exte me of the deceased as per th month at the time of the acciden rther, perusal of record reveals special diet and attendant char warded for medical expenses, oss of amenities etc, therefore, th 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

respondent-Insurance Compa vide award dated 27.07.2006 the parties and perused the wh es that the Tribunal has asses ent of 30% (Ex.A-35). Further he salary certificate Ex.P-37 w nt. that the amount awarded for p rges is on the lower side and transport charges, future medi he same requires indulgence of t 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

any has hole ssed was pain ical this t of e of 343, ort) that tely ct of

wro equ dam or disa be suff com tho inju hav Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

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 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)

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). 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

and tion e of y to h he be njoy ould AIR dia) onal nes, ave ty.

(iv) inju

(v)

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

19.

(i) A res

(ii) who loss ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub

) 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 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

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 : 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

f the only ury, ence f the s on s of of not e of s of nent s of him

evid ear Tri

(iv) of l nat fac

¶20wit Illu ear evid inju per how bec gra Illu is a

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 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

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 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

s of ages ther low and or's f the y is nce, wer Rs. ility

lon and Tri 75% Illu Eng two The inc ass cap wil a) M hav Eng b) L (70 c) M d) L [No hyp act

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 : 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

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 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)].

leak The y as year for ted. was ning tion are

12.

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

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

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 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."

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 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

any nder wing mine of rent s. It ads, nses ely. able um-that s in e of d so

13.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

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

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel

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 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

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'. 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:

tate us: s of onal ACJ nch d in elhi age with nsel nent med t in deep

jud mu qua disa disa occ und

"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. 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

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 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

ples t or over t; ther y be rlier d to nent n 8 gust

(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 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

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 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.

ant, tate urt. and has that on into erit ples case The t in ally

(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 Loss of comfort, loss of amenities and mental agony Pain and suffering Total

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/-Rs.1,50,000/-Rs.2,00,000/-Rs.41,69,831/-

d as ered % in sh's ious nce ates tled , as

Rs. per CONCLUSION

13.

In above referred

27.07.2006 is m compensation as Sr. No. In F A

4. L

5. M

6. M

7. A

8. T

9. P

10. S

T

A

E

14.

So Court in Dara 3176and R.Vall

The appellant would, thus, 41,69,831/- as claimed along w r annum from the date of applica N view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present app modified accordingly. The appella s per the calculations made here-Heads ncome uture Prospects 50% Annual Income Loss of Future earning per annum Multiplier (16) Medical Attendant Charges Transportation ain and Sufferings pecial diet Total Compensation Amount Awarded by Tribunal Enhanced Amount far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. lli and Others VS. Tamil Nan

be entitled to the compensation with simple interest at the rate of ation till the date of payment. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peal is allowed. The award da ant-claimant is entitled to enhan -under:- Compensation Awarded Rs.14,136/- Rs.7068/- (50% of 14,136/-) Rs.2,54,448/- (14136+7068 x 12) m Rs.76,334/- (2,54,448 x 30%) Rs.12,21,344/- (76,334/- x 16) Rs.50,000/- Rs.10000/- Rs.10000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.13,61,344/- Rs.13000/- Rs.13,48,344/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre Shyam Singh Varma 2019 A ndu State Transport Corporat

n of f 9% ated nced ) eme ACJ

(2022) 5 Suprem @ 9% per annum till the date of it

15.

The compensation al from today. The compensation a claimant/appella

16.

Dis

17.

Pen

September 05, 2 A.Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r

me Court Cases 107, the appel m on the enhanced amount from ts realization. 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 the bank sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st 2024

(S

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No

lant-claimant is granted the inter m the date of filing of claim petit 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

rest tion nt of nths t of The .