Mam Chand v. Sukhdev and Ors

IN T

Mam Chand

Sukhdev Singh

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Mr Mr for

Mr

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

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

2.

Bri was going from HR-37A-9246 b speed by its dri Punjab Cinema No.HR-02F-031

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

-.-

FA

Da

Versus and others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.Dinesh Kumar Prajapati, Advoc the appellant(s). r. Rahul Bansal, Advocate for r. D.R. Bansal, Advocate the respondent No.2. r. Aseem Kataria, Advocate for r -.-

HARMA, J. e instant appeal has been prefe f compensation awarded by th hkula (for short, 'the Tribunal') v the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, w nsation of Rs.2,36,873/- along w N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that on m Barwala to Swami Hospital, D being driven on the correct left h iver Banarsi Dass. At about 10 Hall, Dera Bassi, in the mean 14 being driven rashly and neg

JAB AND HARYANA ARH

AO-2581-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision : 20.09.2024

....Appellant

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA cate respondent No.4. erred by the claimant/appellant he learned Motor Accident Cla vide award dated 09.01.2006 un whereby the claimant/appellant w with interest @ 7.5% per annum. n 10.6.2002, the claimant-appell Dera Bassi by a three wheeler N hand side of the road at a moder

0.00 a.m., when they reached n ntime, a tractor bearing registrat gligently by respondent No.1 ca

for ims nder was lant No. rate near tion

from opposite si the road. As a re injuries. The cl fracture on righ suffered fractur other multiple i remained admit applied on the

11.6.2002 and operation of rig and fourth oper right femur bon treatment and c his treatment, tr health in the ag clothes near bu paying rent ther Rs. 5,000/- per he has become This accident h tractor No.HR-0

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

ide and hit the three wheeler by g esult of the accident, all the occu laimant suffered multiple simpl ht leg at femur his and bone re of right femur, left knee join injuries. The claimant was take tted w.e.f. 10.6.2002 to 18.6.20 right leg of the claimant for on operation for plating of left ht leg was conducted on 19.07.2 ration was conducted for plating ne was replaced by way of ope onfined to bed. The claimant ha ransportation, attendant/visitors ge of 34 years. He was runnin us stand Barwala by placing a reof of Rs. 200/- per month. Th month but on account of injurie permanent disabled and unable has taken place on account of s 02F-0314 driven by respondent N on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties,

going on the extreme wrong side upants of the three wheeler suffe le and grievous injuries includ was crushed badly. The claim nt and left leg below knee besi en to PGI from the spot where

¶002The traction and fixator w ne month by way of operation leg was also conducted. Anot 2002, in Saket Hospital, Panchk g of left leg. A four inch piece eration. The claimant is still un as spent more than Rs. 90,000/- etc. The claimant is having go ng a shop of washing and iron a Khokha on Panchayat Land a he claimant was earning more th es suffered by him in this accide e to do any work or earn anythi sole rash and negligent driving No.1. , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow

e of ered ding mant ides e he were on ther kula e of nder - on ood and han ent, ing. g of nied

5.

Aft record, the lear interest @ 7.5% for enhancemen SUBMISSIONS

6.

amount assessed

He relation to his l produced on rec

He Rs.46783/- for m

He transportation, s and Rs.1,50,000

"1 Whether the accident in q negligent driving of his vehic OPP 2 If issue No.1 is proved, wh in the accident in question, if 3 If the above issues are entitled to compensation, if s 4 Whether respondent no. effective driving license on th

¶5Relief." ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compen % per annum. Hence the claiman nt of compensation awarded by th 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 lower limb to the extent of 75 cord as Ex.P-1. further contends that the le medical expenses which is also o further contends that the Trib special diet, loss of income etc., 0/- for permanent disability, whic

question took place due to rash a cle by respondent no.1, as allege ether the claimant received injur f so to what effect? OPP proved, whether the claimant so to what amount? OPP 1 was not holding a valid a he date of accident?OPR-4 he pleadings and the evidence nsation of Rs.2,36,873/- alongw nt/appellant filed the present app he Tribunal. HE PARTIES imant-appellant contends that he lower side. ant suffered permanent disability 5% and the disability certificate arned Tribunal has granted o on the lower side. bunal has awarded Rs.30000/- , Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffer ch is also on the lower side.

and ed? ries t is and on with peal y in e is only for

7.

Per the learned Trib of compensation

8.

Lea been passed and

9.

I h record of this ca

10.

is not disputed b SETTLED LAW

11.

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

¶5ma com res awa wro equ dam or disa be

r contra, learned for the responde bunal vide award dated 09.01.20 n. arned counsel for respondent No d prays for dismissal of the appea have heard learned counsel for ase. e income of the appellant is asse by the counsel for the respondent 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

ent-Insurance Company argues t 006 has rightly assessed the amo o.2 submits that award has wron al. the parties and perused the wh essed as Rs.5000/- per month wh ts. 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 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

that ount ngly hole hich t of Raj has ort) that tely ct of t of and tion e of y to

suff com tho inju hav Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

(v)

(vi) In r und whe of t

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) ) 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

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 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

be njoy ould AIR dia) onal nes, ave ty. eral f the only ury, ence

hea acc am exp

19.

(i) A res

(ii) who loss ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub evid ear Tri

(iv) of l nat fac

¶20wit

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 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

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 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

s on s of of not e of s of nent s of him give s of ages ther

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

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 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

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 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

and or's f the y is nce, wer Rs. ility d no leak y as year

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

12.

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

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

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 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

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)]. 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;

ted. was ning tion are on any nder wing mine

(E) age

13.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age Ins effe Tra

) 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 e table in the case of Sarla V ansport Corporation and Anothe

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 Verma (Smt) and Others v. De er, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the

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

gro fac for con app

(b) disa

com Jag Kha bel

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;

(iv) Medical expenses incl required to undertake

(v) Loss of expectation of

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 luding those that the victim may in future; and f life." [emphasis supplied]

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

jud mu qua disa disa occ und

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 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

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 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

rlier 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:

Heads Loss of earning power

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 Awarded Rs. 9,81,978/-

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

Rs. per

14.

In t the time of the a 10671-CII-2022 be taken as 38 y

15.

In v

09.01.2006 is m

16.

Acc Hon'ble Suprem entitled to the en Sr. No. Inco Futu Ann Los annu Mul

(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 the petition, the claimant has sub accident but in the affidavit date 2, he has stated his age as 55 yea years at the time of accident. view of the above, the present modified. cordingly, as per the settled p me Court as mentioned above, nhanced compensation amount a Heads ome Rs ure Prospects 40% Rs nual Income Rs s of future earning per um @ 75% Rs ltiplier (15) Rs

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. bmitted that he was 34 years old ed 25.08.2022 filed by him in C ars, so the age of the claimant is appeal is allowed and award da principles of law as laid down , the appellant - claimant is h as calculated below: Compensation Awarded s.5000/- s.2000/- (40% of 5000) s.84000/- (5000+2000 x 12) s.63000/- (84000/-x75%) s.9,45,000/- (63000 x 15)

n of f 9% d at CM-s to ated by

¶5Med Atte Tran Pain Spe Los Mar

Tot

Am Trib

Enh

17.

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

18.

enhanced amou period of two m enhanced amou claimant/appella details to the Tr to the appellant.

19.

Pen

September 20, 2 A.Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r

dical Rs endant Charges Rs nsportation Rs n and Sufferings Rs cial diet Rs s of amenities of life Rs rriage prospects 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 respondent No.4-Punjab Natio nt of compensation along with months from today. The Tribuna unt of compensation along wi ant. The claimant/appellant is di ribunal. Stayed amount by this C

nding applications, if any, also st 2024

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No

s.46,873/- s.1,00,000/- s.50000/- s.2,00,000/- s.70,000/- s.1,00,000/- s.1,00,000/- s.16,11,873/- s.2,36,873/- s.13,75,000/- 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 onal Bank is directed to deposit interest with the Tribunal withi al is further directed to disburse th interest in the account of irected to furnish his bank acco Court, if any, shall also be relea tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng

eme 2) 5 9% in a ount