Nathi v. Subhash and Ors

IN T

Nathi Subhash and Oth

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

for

Mr

for SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The enhancement of Tribunal, Sirsa Section 166 of t awarded a comp

2.

The year 2006, with pending final ad which took plac illegible and unr

3.

Up do not possess properly.

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da

VERSUS hers

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate the appellant r. Ravinder Arora, Advocate the respondent – Insurance Co. -.- HARMA, J. (Oral)

e present appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th (for short, 'the Tribunal') vid the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w pensation of Rs.10,000/- along w e present appeal stems from an h considerable time having passe djudication. The case file has b ce in this Court in the year 2011 r readable. on enquiry by this Court, the pa a complete brief of the instant c

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-490-2007 (O&M) ate of Decision : 08.11.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA

erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Cla de award dated 11.08.2006 un whereby, the claimant/appellant w with interest @ 7.5% per annum. n accident which took place in ed while the instant appeal rema been fully burnt due to fire incid resulting in the facts being rende arties to the appeal stated that th case and unable to assist the Co

for ims nder was ains dent ered hey

4.

In loss/destruction this Court is lef the facts of the c SUBMISSIONS

5.

The claimant-appella submits that no charges. More lower side. He, of compensation

6.

Per has contended Therefore, he pr

7.

I h record of this ca

8.

A p appellant suffer perusal of the a for special diet, on the lower sid SETTLED LAW

9.

Ho compensation w

the light of the facts and ci of the case file as well as the ft with no option but to dispens case in this judgment. S OF LEARNED COUNSELS e learned counsel for the clai ant had suffered four injuries o amount of compensation was over, the compensation granted therefore, prays that the present n be enhanced. r contra, learned counsel for th that there is no scope for e rays for dismissal of the present have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicates th red four injuries and did not su award further reveals that no am transport charges and the amou de. Therefore, the award requires W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court has set with respect to the disability. T

ircumstances and considering absence of complete papers bo se with the requirement to set fo S FOR THE PARTIES imant-appellant contends that due to the accident. He furt granted for special diet, transp d for pain and suffering is on t appeal be allowed and the amo he respondent -Insurance Compa enhancement in the present ca appeal. the parties and perused the wh at as per MLR Ex.PF, the claima uffer any permanent disability. mount of compensation was gran unt granted for pain and suffering s indulgence of this Court. ttled the law regarding grant The Apex Court in the case of

full ook, orth ther port ount any ase. hole ant-A nted g is t of

Kumar Vs. Aja held as under:- Gen

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

¶6inju

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 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 :

) 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 n prior to the accident. The objec od the loss suffered as a resul 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

has ort) that tely ct of t of and tion e of y to h he be njoy ould AIR dia)

Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 loss 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

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

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

10.

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

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

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 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

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)]. 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;

was ning tion are on any nder wing mine

(E) age The

11.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age Ins effe

) 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 ye 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

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 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

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

Tra gro fac for con app

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel

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 "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;

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: 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; ctim to lead a normal life toget

elhi age with nsel nent med t in deep ract ples t or over t;

jud mu qua disa disa occ und

(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

(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

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 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

y be rlier d to nent n 8 gust t as ant,

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

(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

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. 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

tate urt. and has that on into erit ples case The t in ally d be d as ered % in sh's ious

Rs. per CONCLUSION

12.

In above referred

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 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

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/- 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

ates tled t, as d as n of f 9%

11.08.2006 is enhanced compe Sr. No.

¶1Tran

¶2Pain

¶3Nut

¶4Med

Tota

Com

Enh

13.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and Supreme Cour per annum from

14.

As Company was a (driver and own interest (jointly

15.

In v the enhanced a within a period judgment. The T

modified accordingly. The ensation as per the calculations m Heads nsportation Charges Rs n and sufferings Rs trition & Special Diet Rs dical Expenses Rs al Compensation Rs Rs mpensation awarded by Tribunal Rs hanced Compensation Rs far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nadu State t Cases 107, the amount so calc m the date of filing of claim petiti per award dated 11.08.2006 absolved from paying compens ner) were directed to pay the am and severely). view of the same, respondent N amount of compensation with th of two months from the date o Tribunal is further directed to di

appellant-claimant is entitled made here-under:- Compensation Awarded s.10,000/- s.40,000/- s.30,000/- s.7,599/- s.87,599/- (rounded off to s.87,600/-) s.10,000/- s.77,600/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 e Transport Corporation (2022 culated shall carry an interest @ on till the date of realization. 6, respondent No.3 – Insura sation and respondent Nos.1 an mount of compensation along w Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to dep he Tribunal (jointly and severe of receipt of certified copy of t sburse the amount of compensat

to eme 2) 5 @9% ance d 2 with osit ely) this

along with inter directed to furni

16.

In

18.07.2024, the scheduled fees t the date of recei

17.

Dis

18.

Pen

November 8, 20 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

rest in the account of claimant/a ish his bank account details to th view of the order passed in e insurance company is hereby to Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocat ipt of copy of this judgment. sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

appellant. The claimant/appellan he Tribunal. n FAO No.1682 of 2007 da y directed to deposit the curr te within a period of ten days fr tand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

nt is ated rent