Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Narender(Minor) vs Rambir And Ors on 5 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(390) FAO No.1989-2006
DATE OF DECISION: 05.11.2024
Narender minor through his mother Smt. Sumitra ............Appellant
VERSUS
Rambir and others ..............Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present Mr.Nikhil, Advocate,
for Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate,
for respondent no.3.
***
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J, (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
08.02.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted to the
claimant/appellant.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are
that claimant Narender aged 13 years, a student of 8th standard in Sidharth
Public School, Kalanaur was coming from Kalanaur to Rohtak alongwith her
mother in a Jeep bearing registration No.HR-19-A-6536 being driven by
respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and when they reached near Dhob
Dhani Highway in the area of village Dobh, he hit another vehicle due to which
1 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 2
one person fell down on the road and that claimant sustained injuries including
head injury and that he remained admitted in PGIMS Rohtak from 3.10.2003 to
9.10.2003. Claimant was meritorious student who became permanent disabled
to the extent of 100%. His left hand was amputated. The matter was reported to
the police whereupon FIR No.196 dated 4.10.2003 under section 279/338/304-
A IPC was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station Kalanaur. An
amount of Rs.50,000/- was spent on his treatment.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied
the factum of accident/compensation.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of Jeep bearing registration No. HR-
19-A-6536 by respondent No. 1 Rambir as alleged by
petitioner resulting into injuries to claimant Narender,
as alleged ?OPP
2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether claimant Nardnder
is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and
from whom?OPP
3) Whether respondent No. 1 Rambir was not having a
valid driving licence and the Jeep in question was
being driven in violation of terms and conditions of
the insurance policy at tria time of accident ?OPR-3
4) Relief.
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-
alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Hence, the claimant/appellant filed the
present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 3
SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
6. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further
contends:-
i) that as per disability certificate Ex.P1, the permanent disability of the
injured was assessed to the extent of 70%;
ii) that injured Narender was minor aged around 13 years and was a
student of class 8th standard. The Tribunal has erred in granting
Rs.1,50,000/- in lumpsum and not granted compensation qua
transportation charges, pain and suffering, attendant charges and special
diet;
iii) Moreover, no amount was awarded for future prospects and notional
income was also not taken by the learned Tribunal.
Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and
compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed
and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly
been granted.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
9. A perusal of the record shows that as per the disability certificate
Ex.P1, permanent disability of the injured was assessed to the extent of 70%. It
is further revealed from the record that at the time of the accident, the appellant
3 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 4
was 13 years old meritorious student. As a result of this accident, he is 70%
disabled now and his future has been ruined.
10. The learned Tribunal while granting the compensation has not
taken into consideration the future of the appellant, consequent to the accident.
The learned Tribunal failed to grant the compensation on account of loss of
income to the parents as well as to the appellant and physical as well as mental
loss to the appellant with respect to his education, job and marriage.
11. Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of this Court in
a case titled as Parvesh vs. Satbir and others FAO No.4284 of 2006, decided
on 23.08.2024, wherein it was held as under:-
12. Reference at this stage can be made to a
judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of
V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and anr, 2014(11) SCC 178
wherein in a motor accident, the victim was a student and
bones of her both legs fractured. Hon’ble the Supreme Court
assessed her notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and
awarded her 50% future prospects. She was awarded Rs.3
lacs under the head Loss of enjoyment of life and marriage
prospects. She was awarded Rs. 2 lacs under the head pain
and suffering and Rs. 2 lacs under the head loss of amenity
and attendant charges. The relevant extract of the judgment
is reproduced as under:-
“17. The fact that the appellant was a brilliant student
at the time of the accident should also be taken into
consideration while awarding compensation to her.
Therefore, taking Rs.6,000/- as monthly notional
income by the Tribunal for the purpose of awarding
compensation under this head is too meager an
amount. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 contended that the appellant can still4 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274FAO No.1989-2006 5
finish her education and find employment and
therefore, there is no necessity to enhance the amount
of compensation under the head of ‘loss of income’
and ‘future prospects’. It is pertinent to reiterate here
that the claimant/ appellant has undergone and
undergoing substantial pain and suffering due to the
accident which has rendered both her legs
dysfunctional. This has reduced the scope of her future
prospects including her marriage substantially.
Moreover, a tortfeasor is not entitled to dictate the
terms of the claimants-appellants career as has been
held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of K.
Narsimha Murthy v. The Manager, Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd and Anr. ILR 2004 KARNATAKA 2471,
the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:
“41. …. Further, it needs to be
emphasized that it is not the right of the
tortfeasor or a person who has taken over the
liability of the tortfeasor in terms of and under
the Act to dictate that the injured person should
do some other work, manual or otherwise, it
does not matter, may be with pain and
discomfort, in order to minimize his or its
liability. Such insistence is untenable in law and
if such is the case, it would violate basic human
rights of the injured person. In this case, the
appellant is reduced to such a state that he is
unable to do any work, manual or otherwise,
without subjecting himself to pain and suffering,
agony and discomfort. In an accident, if a man
is disabled for a work which he was doing
before the accident, that he has no talents, skill,
experience or training for anything else and he
is unable to find any work, manual or clerical,5 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274FAO No.1989-2006 6
such a man for all practical purposes has lost
all earning capacity he possessed before and he
is required to be compensated on the basis of
total loss. In reaching this conclusion we may
derive support from the judgments in Daniels v.
Sir Robert Mc Alpine and Sons Limited and
Blair v. FJC Lilley (Marine) Limited. Secondly,
the physical incapacity to earn income
sustained by the appellant is not temporary, but
permanent and complete as per Exhibit P. 43.
Thirdly, it cannot be said that since the
appellant has sustained only 54% permanent
physical disability in respect of the whole body
as per P.W.3, the Court should take into account
functional disability also at 54% only while
assessing the loss of earning capacity. Such
hypothesis does not stand to reason nor can it
be accepted as valid in terms of law. An injured
person is compensated for the loss which he
incurs as a result of physical injury and not for
physical injury itself. In other words,
compensation is given only for what is lost due
to accident in terms of an equivalent in money
insofar as the nature of money admits for the
loss sustained. In an accident, if a person loses
a limb or eye or sustains an injury, the Court
while computing damages for the loss of organs
or physical injury, does not value a limb or eye
in isolation, but only values totality of the harm
which the loss has entailed the loss of amenities
of life and infliction of pain and suffering: the
loss of the good things of life, joys of life and the
positive infliction of pain and distress.
xxx6 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274FAO No.1989-2006 7
13. In view of the principles set forth in
the V. Mekala’s (supra) and considering his past
results, it is just and appropriate for this Court
to fix his notional monthly income at
Rs.10,000/-.”
12. In view of the principles set forth in Parvesh’s case (supra)
considering his past results, it is just and appropriate for this Court to fix his
notional monthly income at Rs.8,000/- for computation of just and reasonable
compensation under the head of loss of income.
13. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding future prospects
the issue is no longer res integra as the Apex Court in case of V.Mekala v.
M.Malathi and anr. 2014(11) SCC 178 has authoritatively settled the issue.
The relevant extract is reproduced as under:-
18. Further, it has been held in the case of Reshma
Kumari (supra) that certain relevant factors should be taken
into consideration while awarding compensation under the
head of future prospect of income. The relevant paragraph
read as under:
“27. The question as to the methodology required to
be applied for determination of compensation as regards
prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as
possible should be based on certain principles. A person may
have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible
to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of
an immediate pay revision, whereas in another the nature of
employment was such that he might not have continued in
service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature
of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore,
difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be
applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some7 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274FAO No.1989-2006 8
cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or
guess work may be inevitable. That may be so.”
19. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in the
aforesaid case, it would be just and proper for this Court,
and keeping in mind her past results we take Rs.10,000/- as
her monthly notional income for computation of just and
reasonable compensation under the head of loss of income.
Further, the High Court has failed to take into consideration
the future prospects of income based on the principles laid
down by this Court in catena of cases referred to supra.
Therefore, the appellant is justified in seeking for
enhancement under this head as well and we hold that the
claimant- appellant is entitled to 50% increase under this
head as per the principle laid down by this Court in the case
of Santosh Devi (supra). The relevant paragraph reads as
under:
“13. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra), another two Judge
Bench considered various factors relevant for determining
the compensation payable in cases involving motor
accidents, noticed apparent divergence in the views
expressed by this Court in different cases, referred to large
number of precedents including the judgments in U.P. SRTC
v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, Nance v. British
Columbia Electric Railway Company Ltd. 1951 AC 601,
Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. 1942 AC
601 and made an att empt
to limit the exercise of discretion by the Tribunals and the
High Courts in the matter of award of compensation by
laying down straightjacket formula under different headings,
some of which are enumerated below:
(i) Addition to income for future prospects In Susamma
Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in8 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274FAO No.1989-2006 9
Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in
Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In
view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in
favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual
income is in the taxable range, the words “actual salary”
should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition
should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50
years. There should be no addition, where the age of the
deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may
indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to
standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being
applied or different methods of calculation being adopted.
Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed
salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the
courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of
death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare
and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
Therefore, taking both the aspects into account, the total
amount of compensation under this head is calculated as
Rs.22,68,000/- [(Rs.10,000/-x 70/100 + 10,000 x 70/100 x
50/100) x 12 x 18]
20. The compensation under the head pain & suffering and
mental agony was awarded by the High Court after
recording concurrent finding with the award passed by the
Tribunal. However, the courts below have not recorded the
nature of the permanent disablement sustained by the
appellant, while awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under this head
which is too meager an amount and is contrary to the
judgment of R.D. Hattangadi and Govind Yadav cases
9 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 10
(supra). The relevant paragraphs of Govind Yadav case read
as under:
“25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain,
suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg
was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had
remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It
is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a
precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a
person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even
if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer
from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma
throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the tribunals
and the courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of
fixing the amount of compensation.
26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a
young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer
the trauma of not being able to do his normal work.
Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met by
awarding him a sum of Rs 1,50,000 in lieu of pain, suffering
and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg.” Therefore,
under this head the amount awarded should be enhanced to
Rs.2,00,000/- as the Doctor-PW2 has opined that at the time
of walking with support of crutches, the claimant-appellant
will be suffering pain permanently. Therefore, under this
head it has to be enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to
Rs.2,00,000/-.
21. The loss of amenity and attendant charges awarded by
the courts below at Rs.1,00,000/- is also too meager an
amount as the appellant has permanently lost her amenity of
both the legs. For the purpose of walking, squatting, running
and also studying throughout her life and particularly, at the
10 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 11
advanced age, she will be requiring the attendant for giving
assistance to attend the nature’s call and also at the time of
sitting or moving around. Therefore, the compensation at
this head is required to be enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to
Rs.2,00,000/- based upon the principle laid down by this
court in Govind Yadav case (supra), the relevant paragraph
of which reads as under:
“27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss
of amenities was also meagre. It can only be a matter of
imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the
rest of his life with one artificial leg. The appellant can be
expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he
will not be able to live like a normal human being and will
not be able to enjoy life. The prospects of his marriage have
considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and
reasonable to award him a sum of Rs 1,50,000 for the loss of
amenities and enjoyment of life.”
22. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of
‘Loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects’ at
Rs.2,00,000/- is totally inadequate since her marriage
prospect has substantially reduced and on account of
permanent disablement she will be deprived of enjoyment of
life. Therefore, it would be just and proper to enhance the
compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. In so far
as, purchase of crutches periodically, it would be just and
proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/-.”
14. Pursuant to the principles outlined in V.Mekala’s case (supra), the
appellant/petitioner is entitled to an enhancement of 50% for future prospect.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
11 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 12
15. 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 awarding 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;
12 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 13
(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 :
(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,
13 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 14
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 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
14 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 15
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)].
16. 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;
(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.15,00015 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274FAO No.1989-2006 16
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.”
17. 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.
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
16 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 17
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
(vi) fracture shaft femur
17 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 18
(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:
18 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274FAO No.1989-2006 19
Heads Awarded
Loss of earning power Rs. 9,81,978/-
(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
Future prospects (50 per Rs.4,90,989/-
cent addition)
Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-
transport charges,
nourishment, etc.
Loss of matrimonial Rs.5,00,000/-
prospects
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.”
18. In view of the above referred judgments, the present appeal is
allowed and award dated 08.02.2006 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled
principles of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above,
the appellant-claimant is held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation
as calculated below:
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.8,000/-
2 Loss of future prospects @ 50% Rs.4,000/- (50% of 8,000/-)
3 Annual income Rs.96,000/- (8,000x12)
4. Loss on account of 70% disability Rs.67,200/- (96,000/- x 70%)
5 Multiplier (18) Rs.12,09,600/- (67,200x18)
6 Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/-
7 Special diet Rs.50,000/-
19 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 20
8 Transportation charges Rs.30,000/-
9 Marriage prospects Rs.1,50,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.15,39,600/-
Amount Awarded by the Rs.1,50,000/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.13,89,600/-
19. 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 amount so
calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition, till the date of realization.
20. As per Award passed by learned Tribunal dated 08.02.2006, the
learned Tribunal decided the Claim Petition in favour of claimant and against
respondents no.1 and 2 i.e driver and owner of the vehicle respectively.
Respondents no.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally to pay the
compensation. The respondent no.3 was directed to pay the compensation in the
first instance and liberty was granted to respondent no.3 to recover the same
from respondent no.2.
21. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 – Insurance Company is
directed to pay compensation in the first instance and liberty is granted to
respondent no.3 to recover the same from respondent no.2.
22. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount 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
directed to disburse the same to the appellant-claimant in his bank account. The
appellant-claimant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the
Tribunal.
20 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147274
FAO No.1989-2006 21
23. Disposed off accordingly.
24. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
05.11.2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
21 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 16-11-2024 20:18:58 :::