Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwan Singh vs Suresh Kumar And Ors on 29 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.11.2024
Balwan Singh ......Appellant
Vs.
Suresh Kumar and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the
award dated 18.04.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’) by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby claim
petition filed by the appellant/claimant, was dismissed.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2003,
appellant/claimant boarded a jeep bearing registration No.HR-16A-4186
from his village, which was being driven by respondent No.1 at a very high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner as well as without observing the
traffic rules. When the said jeep reached Laharu ‘Mor’ towards Siwani, it
turned turtle. As a result thereof, appellant/claimant sustained injuries and
his right hand was got fractured. Thereafter, the appellant/claimant was
1 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -2-
rushed to Jain Orthopadic Hospital, Hisar by his brother Om Parkash, where
he remained admitted upto 03.08.2003.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and
filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.
4. Appellant/claimant did not file rejoinder to the written reply.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed
the following issues:-
“1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of jeep No. HR-16A-4186 by
respondent No.1 Suresh Kumar? OPP
2) Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation
on account of his injuries, if so, how much and from
whom? OPR
3) Whether the Insurance Company is not liable to
make the payment of compensation, if awarded, or not?
OPR.
4) Relief.”
6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the
present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the
learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that the
appellant/claimant could not prove injuries sustained by him in the accident
caused by respondent No.1.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award dated
2 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -3-
18.04.2006 and submits that the award has rightly been dismissed by the
learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
10. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:-
“7. In order to prove this issue, the claimant had
examined Balwan as its first witness. He stated that he
was coming to Hisar and was sitting in the jeep bearing
Registration No HR-16A-4186 and it was being driven in
a rash and negligent manner and he asked the driver to
slow down but he did not pay heed and when the jeep
reached Loharu ‘mor’ it over turned. He stated that the
accident occurred on account of negligent driving of the
jeep driver. It was also stated that he was taken to the
hospital by his brother who was an eye witness and his
brother also went to the police to lodge a report but the
police did not take any action and he filed a complaint
which was sent to the police station under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. He admitted in the cross examination that the
driver and the owner of the jeep were of his village. He
could not say whether the driver or the conductor had
sustained injuries. He stated that he belonged to the Jat
Community and so were the owner and driver of the jeep.
He stated that the driver of the jeep was his uncle in the
brotherhood. He also stated that he had told the doctor
that he had sustained injuries in the accident and the
doctor had sent ruqa to the police and the police had
come to the hospital after 3-4 days. Dr. Ramesh Jain
PW2 of Jain Orthopedic Hospital, Hisar stated that he
had examined Balwan on 23.7.2003 and he was having
lacerated wound on the back of the elbow and the arm3 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -4-
and the X-ray showed fracture of shaft and he was
operated upon and was discharged from the hospital on
3.8.2003 vide Ex.P1. In the cross examination, he stated
that no MLR was prepared nor any ruqa was sent to the
police.
8. Jagbir Singh Ahlmad PW4 brought the summoned
record title “State Vs. Suresh” pending in the Courts at
Siwani. He proved the FIR Ex.P14. His cross
examination was deferred and thereafter the counsel for
the respondent made a statement that the witness was not
to be cross examined. Devender Kumar Ahlmad PW5
brought the summoned file titled ‘State Vs. Suresh’. He
stated that the case was pending for the prosecution
evidence for 29.4.2006.
9. In order to succeed, the claimant has to prove that
he had sustained injuries in an accident which was
caused by respondent No.1. According to the claimant,
the accident took place on 23.7.2003. The eye witness to
this accident is Om Parkash real brother of Balwan. The
brother was not examined. Balwan had stated that his
brother had gone to the police station to lodge the report.
The statement of Balwan’s brother was crucial as he had
lodged the report. It is the case of the claimant that the
police did not register the case and thereafter a
complaint was filed in the court which was sent to the
police and finally FIR was registered on 23.8.2003.
There is no material on the file as to when the complaint
was filed in the court.
10. The counsel for the Insurance Company had urged
that it may be a coincidence that the claimant and the
driver of the jeep belonged to the same village and if it
was not then since the driver was known to the claimant,4 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -5-
there was no reason why the claimant had not revealed
to the Medical Officer and invariably a query is put to
the injured or his relative and if it is a case of accident,
ruqa is sent to the police station and it would be seen
that though a stand was taken by the claimant that he
had revealed about the accident to the doctor but no
question was put to him when he stepped into the witness
box as PW2 and the jeep has been introduced after
deliberations and a story had been concocted and no
ruqa was sent.
11. The accident took place on 23.7.2003. A month
later the FIR was registered on 23.8.2003. There is no
evidence as to when the complaint was filed in the court.
It has come in evidence that the driver was known to the
claimant and also to his brother. If the jeep had turned
turtle, neither the driver nor the jeep would have taken
away the vehicle. The fact that no MLR was prepared, no
ruqa was sent goes to show that the vehicle has been
introduced later on. If the accident had occurred in the
manner suggested by the claimant there would have been
some others who would have sustained injuries. The
claimant was silent with respect to this. He could not
even say whether the driver sustained injuries. The
claimant got discharged from the hospital on 2.8.2003.
Even then he did not go to the police station. The name
of the driver and the jeep number were available. The
facts go to prove that the accident did not occur in the
manner suggested and the vehicle has been introduced
and a story has been concocted and it is held that the
claimant has failed to prove that the claimant sustained
injuries in an accident caused by respondent No.1. The
issue is answered against the claimant.”
5 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -6-
11. A bare reading of the above paragraphs shows that the learned
Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record and has wrongly
dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant on the ground
that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested and the
appellant/claimant failed to prove injuries sustained in the accident caused
by respondent No.1.
12. A perusal of the record further shows that respondents No.1 and
2 admitted that the appellant/claimant had boarded the jeep. It is further
pleaded that when the jeep reached Loharu Mor, a cow suddenly appeared
on the road and in order to save the cow, the driver turned the jeep on one
side and it turned turtle. Therefore, the factum of accident and turning the
jeep turtled is admitted by respondents No.1 and 2 themselves.
13. A perusal of the record further shows that:-
(i) Appellant/claimant (injured) was himself examined as
PW-1, who stated the factum of accident and in his cross-
examination, there was no discrepancy.
(ii) Jagbir Singh, Ahlmad, was examined as PW-4, who
brought file of criminal case titled as ‘State Vs. Suresh’in FIR
No.123 dated 23.08.2003, under Sections 279/337/338 of the
IPC registered at Police Station Siwani, which proved the
registration of the FIR against respondent No.1.
(iii) Another Ahlmad Devender Kumar, was examined as PW-
5, who brought the case file titled as ‘State Vs. Suresh’ bearing
No.123 dated 23.08.2003, under Sections 279/337/338 of the
6 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -7-
IPC registered at Police Station Siwani, and stated that the said
case was pending for 29.04.2006 for prosecution evidence. In
his cross-examination, he stated that PW2-Ramesh Jain,
Orthopedic Surgeon, has already been examined on 08.05.2004.
(iv) Dr. Sanjay Dahiya, SMO, General Hospital, Hansi,
was examined as PW-6, who stated that he along with Board of
Doctors namely Dr. Dalal and Civil Surgeon Dr. O.P.Phogat
issued disability certificate to Balwan Singh son of Phula Ram.
He proved the disability certificate as Ex.P-15.
14. A perusal of the record further shows that the learned Tribunal
has noted down the factum that the police did not register the FIR, therefore,
a complaint was lodged before the Court and the Magistrate having powers
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, sent the complaint to the police to investigate
into the matter and thereafter, an FIR was lodged. Learned Tribunal did not
appreciate the very fact that the FIR was registered on a complaint case,
which was ordered by the Magistrate while exercising the powers under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Meaning thereby, the Magistrate was prima facie
satisfied and took cognizance of the offence. Further, the learned Tribunal
has held that if the accident took place and the appellant/claimant was taken
to the doctor then why no ruqa was sent by the doctors to the police and why
no MLR was prepared. This reasoning given by the learned Tribunal is
unsustainable since for the lack of responsibility on the part of doctors, the
appellant/claimant should not suffer. The procedural lapse on the part of the
medical officer should not be attributed to the appellant/claimant. Therefore,
7 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -8-
in view of the above, factum of accident is proved by lodging of the FIR and
admission by respondents No.1 and 2. Further, the injuries sustained by the
appellant/claimant are proved by the statements of the doctors, who
examined the appellant/claimant. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Anita
Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2021(1) SCC(Cri) 475 has held
that in a motor vehicular accident, standard of proof in motor accident
matters is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond
reasonable doubt and strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like
in criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The relevant extract
of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High
Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of
evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are
inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in
such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities,
rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful
that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence
in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-
examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a
criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the
material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether
the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. A somewhat
similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v.Joaquim
Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646. wherein this Court reiterated
that:
“7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of
negligence on the part of the first respondent who was
driving the pickup van as set up by the claimants was
required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the8 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -9-
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC
530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
1101])
(emphasis supplied)”
15. In view of the above, the award dated 18.04.2006 passed by
learned Tribunal stand vitiated by complete absence of application of
judicial mind.
16. So far as Issue No.3 is concerned, this issue was not pressed
during the course of arguments.
17. With respect to determination of compensation, the record
contains evidence of hospital admission, the claimant’s earning and expenses
incurred for medical treatment and hospitalization. Consequently, this Court
shall adjudicate the compensation in accordance with the documented
evidence on the record.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
18. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of
compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases
343, has held as under:-
General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’
for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding9 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -10-
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair,
reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal
shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude
from consideration any speculation or fancy, though
some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability
and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only
to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for
the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to
lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v.
T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC
551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded
in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages
(General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only
in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical
evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)
(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, future medical expenses,
loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
and loss of expectation of life.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed
above :
10 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -11-
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be
assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity.
To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning
capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent
disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on
the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss
of earning capacity is the same as percentage of
permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning
capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the
Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different
persons, depending upon the nature of profession,
occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is
explained below with reference to the following
Illustration ‘A’ : The injured, a workman, was aged 30
years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of
accident. As per Doctor’s evidence, the permanent
disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was
60% and the consequential permanent disability to the
person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning
capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on
the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued
in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of
compensation will be as follows:
a) Annual income before the accident : Rs.
36,000/-.
b) Loss of future earning per annum
(15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/-.
c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17
d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs.
91,800/-
Illustration ‘B’ : The injured was a driver aged 30
years, earning Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is
amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at
60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no
longer drive. His chances of getting any other
employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the
salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore
11 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -12-
assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%.
Calculation of compensation will be as follows :
a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs.
36,000/- .
b) Loss of future earning per annum
(75% of the prior annual income) : Rs.
27000/-.
c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17
d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs.
4,59,000/-
Illustration ‘C’ : The injured was 25 years and a final
year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he
was in coma for two months, his right hand was
amputated and vision was affected. The permanent
disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was
incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he
required the assistance of a servant throughout his life,
the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as
70%. The calculation of compensation will be as
follows :
a) Minimum annual income he would
have got if had been employed as an
Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-
b) Loss of future earning per annum
(70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/-
c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18
d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-
[Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are
hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based
on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra
(supra)].
19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified
the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
on the following aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine
multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;
12 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -13-
(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with
escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for
different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed
salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
“Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It
seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and
Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the
said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit
should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think
that it would be condign that the amount that we have
quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in
every three years and the enhancement should be at the
rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to
hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect
of those heads.”
20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs.
State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-
“7. There are three aspects which are required to be
examined by us:
(a) the application of multiplier of ’17’ instead of ’18’;
The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the
basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the
judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para
46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench
effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as
mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt)
and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 15-25 years,
the multiplier has to be ’18’ along with factoring in the
extent of disability.
13 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -14-
The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned
counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus,
we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be
applied in the case of the appellant has to be ’18’ and not
’17’.
(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with
permanent disability of 31.1%
In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has
claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled
principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018
ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande &
Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the
principle set out in the Jagdish (supra) in para 8:
“8. In assessing the compensation payable the
settled principles need to be borne in mind. A
victim who suffers a permanent or temporary
disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to
the award of compensation. The award of
compensation must cover among others, the
following aspects:
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from
the accident;
(ii) Loss of income including future income;
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal
life together with its amenities;
(iv) Medical expenses including those that the
victim may be required to undertake in
future; and
(v) Loss of expectation of life.”
[emphasis supplied]
The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized
in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case
(supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically
sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of
income as a result of death or permanent disability
suffered in an accident.
In the factual contours of the present case, if we
examine the disability certificate, it shows the
admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various
number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to
January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as
under:
“Nature of injury:
(i) compound fracture shaft left humerus
(ii) fracture both bones left forearm
(iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm
(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand
(v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur
14 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -15-
(vi) fracture shaft femur
(vii) fracture both bones left leg
We have also perused the photographs annexed to
the petition showing the current physical state of the
appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the
respondent State Corporation that the same was not on
record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the
position even after treatment and the nature of injuries
itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in
para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while
applying the multiplier method, future prospects on
advancement in life and career are also to be taken into
consideration.
We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there
is merit in the contention of the appellant and the
aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must
also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the
permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the
same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii),
considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of
the actual salary in the present case.
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate
claimed as 12%
In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has
watered down the interest rate during the course of
hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements
including in the Jagdish’s case (supra). On this aspect,
once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was
confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by
this Court.
CONCLUSION
8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled
principles, the calculation of compensation by the
appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would
have to be adopted as follows:
Heads Awarded
Loss of earning power Rs. 9,81,978/-
(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
Future prospects (50 per cent Rs.4,90,989/-
addition)
Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-
15 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -16-
transport charges,
nourishment, etc.
Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
Loss of comfort, loss of Rs.1,50,000/-
amenities and mental agony
Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.41,69,831/-
The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the
compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
application till the date of payment.
RELIEF
21. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award
dated 18.04.2006 is hereby set aside. The appellant/claimant is entitled to
compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.2,600/-
2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.1,040/- (40% of Rs.2,600/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.43,680/- (Rs.3,640/- X 12)
4 Loss of future earning due to Rs.3,494.40/- (8% of Rs.43,680/-)
disability (8%) (Rounded of to Rs.3,495/-)
5 Multiplier (18) Rs.62,910/- (Rs.3,495 X 18)
6 Medical Expenses Rs.12,080/-
7 Pain and Suffering Rs.40,000/-
8 Special Diet Rs.20,000/-
9 Transportation charges Rs.10,000/-
10 Attendant Charges Rs.15,000/-
11 Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,89,990/-
16 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:160283
FAO-3106-2006 (O&M) -17-
22. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State
Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellant-
claimant is granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount
from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
23. The Insurance Company-respondent No.3 is directed to deposit
the amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The
Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation along
with interest in the account of the appellant/claimant. The appellant/claimant
is directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal.
24. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is hereby directed to
disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, within
a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
25. Disposed of accordingly.
26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
29.11.2024
Virrendra
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
17 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 07-12-2024 12:05:34 :::