Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Suraj And Ors on 6 March, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
Rajesh Kumar ......Appellant
Vs.
Surjan and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dhiman, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Ms. Manisha, Advocate, for
Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
08.02.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Yamunanagar at Jagadhri (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of
compensation, granted to the claimant/appellant to the tune of Rs.1,15,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of injuries
sustained by the appellant/claimant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred
on in the intervening night of 05/06.03.2003.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined
to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -2-
narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for
the sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends:-
i) That the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.
ii) That the appellant/claimant was 19 years old; was doing
labour contractor work and selling milk and was earning
Rs.8,000/- per month, at the time of accident.
iii) That as per disability certificate (Ex.P48), the
appellant/claimant had suffered permanent disability to the
extent of 12%.
iv) That the amount awarded towards pain and suffering, loss
of income and medical treatment is on lower side. Further
contends that no amount has been awarded by the learned
Tribunal under the heads of transportation, special diet, medical
expenses for future treatment, loss of amenities and attendant
charges.
Therefore, the present appeal be allowed and the compensation
awarded to the appellant/claimant should be enhanced, as per
latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argue that the award has rightly been passed
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -3-
and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has
rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
6. A perusal of the award shows that applicant/claimant was 19
years old, at the time of accident. A perusal of the award further shows that
the appellant/claimant was alleged to be working as a labour contractor, but
no proof has been placed on record in this regard. As such, it cannot be said
that the appellant/claimant was actually earning Rs.8,000/- per month from
the work of labour contractor. However, the learned Tribunal has wrongly
assessed the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.2,500/- per month
without taking into consideration the minimum wages prevalent at the time
of the accident, which was Rs.2,700/- per month, in accordance with the
minimum wages prescribed for unskilled worker in the State of Haryana.
Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant is to be assessed as
Rs.2,700/- per month instead of Rs.2,500/-. A perusal of the award further
shows that the appellant/claimant has suffered 12% permanent disability,
which is evident from his disability certificate (Ex.P48). A perusal of the
award further shows that a meager amount of compensation has been
granted by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering. Moreover, no
amount has been awarded under the heads of transportation, medical
expenses for future treatment, special diet, future prospects, loss of amenities
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -4-
and attendant charges. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this
Court.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
7. 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 :
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -5-
(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 :
(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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -6-
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 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/-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -7-
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)].
8. 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.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the
said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit
should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We thinkVIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -8-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.”
9. 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 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:
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -9-
(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
(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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -10-
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/-
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.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -11-
RELIEF
10. 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 08.02.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellant/claimant is entitled
to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs. 2,700/-
2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.1,080/- (40% of Rs.2,700/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.45,360/- (Rs.3,780 x 12)
4 Loss of earning due to disability Rs.5,443/- (12% of Rs.45,360)
(12%)
5 Multiplier 18
6 Loss of future earning per annum Rs.97,974/- (Rs.5,443 x 18)
7 Medical Expenses Rs.51,000/-
8 Pain and Suffering Rs.70,000/-
9 Special Diet Rs.50,000/-
10 Transportation charges Rs.30,000/-
11 Attendant Charges Rs.30,000/-
12 Loss of income during treatment Rs.10,800/-
13 Loss of amenities of life Rs.75,000/-
14 Marriage Prospects Rs.1,25,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.5,39,774/-
DEDUCTION
Compensation awarded by the Rs.1,15,000/-
Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation Rs.4,24,774/-
(Rs.5,39,774 - 1,15,000)
11. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2298-2006 (O&M) -12-
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu 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.
12. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced 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
directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith
interest in the account of the appellant/claimant. The appellant/claimant is
directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal.
13. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is hereby directed to
disburse the current scheduled fee to Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, within a
period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, in
view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 by this
Court.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
06.03.2025
Virrendra
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2025.03.12 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link