Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir vs Subhash And Ors on 10 January, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-21396-CII-2024 IN/AND
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.01.2025
Satbir ......Appellant
Vs.
Subhash and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate,
for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
CM-19942-CII-2024
1. The present application has been filed seeking restoration of the
main appeal i.e. FAO-1364-2007, which was dismissed for want of
prosecution, vide order dated 16.10.2024 passed by this Court.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly
supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the main appeal i.e. FAO-
1364-2007, is ordered to be restored to its original number and is taken on
Board today itself.
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
14.12.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
1 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -2-
Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar
(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 28.09.2004,
appellant/claimant along with respondent No.1-Subhash was travelling from
Somani Factory, Bahadurgarh to Narnaul, in a truck bearing registration
No.HR-38B-1163, which was being driven by said Subhash, whereas,
appellant/claimant was working as a conductor in the said truck. When they
reached near village Kheri Khumar, said Subhash started driving the truck in
a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. As a result thereof,
appellant/claimant fell down on the road near village Khatiwas and sustained
multiple injuries on his left leg and left hand. Thereafter, the driver of the
offending truck fled away from the spot. In this regard, a case bearing FIR
No.20 dated 13.01.2005 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, was registered at Police Station Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.
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 petitioner is entitled to get
claim/compensation of Rs.10 lacs, if so from whom?
OPP
2 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -3-
2) Whether respondent no.1 was not having a valid
and effective driving license at the time of accident, if so,
to what effect? OPP
3) Whether the claim petition had been filed by the
petitioner in collusion with the respondent no.1 and 2, if
so, to what effect? OPP.
4) Relief.”
6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal 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 dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that the
appellant/claimant did not have any license of the conductor and he was not
able to prove whether he was working as a Conductor on the offending
vehicle or not? He further contends that the learned Tribunal has also erred
in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there was a delay of four
months in lodging the FIR. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be
allowed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award dated
14.12.2006 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.
3 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -4-
10. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:-
“ISSUE No.01.
11. In order to prove the accident, the petitioner has
himself appeared in the witness box as PW4 and testified
that on 28.9.2004, he was going from Bahadurgarh to
Narnaul in a truck bearing registration No HR-38B-
1163. When they reached near village Khatiwas, on a
speed braker, the driver of the truck applied sudden
brakes, due to which, the truck was shaken and he fell
down on the road, due to rash and negligent driving of
the truck by its driver i.e respondent No.1. Due to the
accident, he received injuries on various parts of his
body and the driver of truck ran away from the spot. In
his cross-examination, he stated that he was working as
conductor on the said truck for the last one week and he
was employed by the driver of the truck ie respondent
No.01 and not by the owner i.e respondent No.2. He also
admitted that he was not having a conductor license,
rather he was having a driving license to run the heavy
vehicles. He further stated that he had not reported the
matter to the police immediately after the accident
because the truck driver had assured to compensate him
for the expenses of the treatment etc. But, he lodged the
FIR, when he resiled from his assurance. He refuted the
suggestion that he was not employed by the driver on the
said truck or that the accident did not take place due to
rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by
respondent No. 1 or that he was not traveling in the said
truck at that time or that the accident took place due to
his own fault. He admitted that FIR for this accident i.e.
Ex.P11 was got lodged when he filed a complaint before
4 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -5-
the Illaqua Magistrate. He refuted the suggestion that he
had filed a false complaint against the driver of truck in
order to get the compensation.
12. The next witness of the petitioners to prove the
accident is Jagmal Singh, who has appeared in the
witness box as PW1. He has testified that on 28.9.2004,
he was coming from Jahajgarh to Jhajjar with his Tempo
and when he reached near village Khatiwas, a truck
came from the opposite side, which was being driven in a
rash and negligent manner. On seeing the said truck, he
stopped his tempo on the kacha berm of the road due to
fear. In the mean time, the driver of said truck drove his
truck in a rash and negligent manner and jumped over a
speed braker, due to which, the petitioner fell down from
the truck and received injuries. The truck driver had in
away from the spot. He further stated that the petitioner
was traveling in the said truck. When he asked, the
petitioner told him that he was working as conductor on
the said truck and thereafter, he had taken him to his
village Meharampur. In his cross-examination, he
pleaded his ignorance about the traffic going on the road
at the time of accident. He has given his age as 65 years.
He refuted the suggestion that he was not having a
driving license or that he was not authorized to drive the
tempo or that he was not even able to see properly or
that the accident was caused by some un-identified
vehicle.
13. On this evidence, learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that the driver or the owner of the
truck did not appear in the witness box and from the
evidence adduced by the petitioners, it is proved that he
5 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -6-
has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving
of offending truck by respondent No.1.
14. On the other hand, it was contended by learned
counsel for the insurance company that it is a false and
manipulated case. No prompt FIR was lodged nor the
petitioner has been able to prove the fact that he was
working conductor on the said truck or that he was
traveling in the said truck at the time of accident and,
therefore, it is not proved that the accident in question
had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the
truck by respondent No.1.
15. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I
am of the view that there is force in the contention of
learned counsel for the insurance company. If the
statement of petitioner is perused carefully, it is quite
evident that he was not working as conductor on the said
truck because he is not having any such license and he
has admitted that he was not having such license rather
he was having a license to run the heavy vehicle, but he
has not produced the same. He has admitted that he was
employed as conductor on week before the said accident
that too by the driver of the said truck. No doubt, FIR
was not lodged with the police by the petitioner, but the
same was lodged at the instance of Magistrate. The
accident in question had taken place on 28.9.2004,
whereas the FIR was lodged on 13.1.2005 i.e. after about
tour months. Mere lodging of FIR is not sufficient to
prove that the vehicle in question was being driven by
respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. It is
also a settled law that a person who does not come to
court with clean hands is not entitled to any relief. From
6 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -7-
the statement of petitioner and eye witnesses, it appears
that the entire story has been manipulated and fabricated
by the petitioner in order to get the compensation,
therefore, it is held that the petitioner did not sustain any
injury due to rash and negligent driving of truck by the
petitioner or out of the use of the said truck and hence,
this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour
of the respondents.
16. Since, under issue No.1, it is proved that the
petitioner did not sustain injuries in the alleged accident,
therefore, the remaining issues have he won become
infructuous and thus, there is no need to give any
findings thereon.”
11. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal failed to
adequately consider the testimony of PW-1, Jagmal Singh (eye-witness),
who categorically deposed that on 28.09.2004, while driving his tempo near
Village Khatiwas, he witnessed the accident. He specifically stated that the
truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, jumping over a speed
breaker, causing the claimant, who was traveling in the truck, to fall and
sustain injuries. He further stated that he helped the appellant/claimant by
taking him to his village and confirmed that appellant/claimant was a
Conductor on the truck. The testimony of PW-1, Jagmal Singh (eye-
witness), remained consistent and unshaken during the cross-examination.
The respondent’s counsel failed to elicit any contradiction or cast doubt on
the credibility of the said witness. Moreover, the suggestion put to PW-1,
Jagmal Singh, that he fabricated his statement was refuted with cogent
7 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -8-
reasoning, including his lack of connection with the claimant. Thus, his
testimony corroborates the appellant/claimant’s version of the events and
establishes rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. The
appellant/claimant (Satbir), while appearing as PW-4, deposed by giving a
detailed account of the incident. He testified that on 28.09.2004, he was
travelling in the truck as a Conductor. Due to the driver’s sudden application
of brakes while crossing a speed breaker, the truck jerked violently, causing
him to fall and sustain multiple injuries. The claimant unequivocally stated
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the truck
driver.
12. Despite lengthy cross-examination, the testimony of PW-4 i.e
the appellant/claimant (Satbir), remained consistent and credible. The
learned Tribunal erred in dismissing his testimony on the basis of his lack of
possessing a Conductor license. It is well settled that the absence of a
license does not absolve the driver or owner of the vehicle from liability
from injuries caused by negligence. Further the claims under the Motor
Vehicle Act are not contingent upon the claimant’s employment status or
possession of a license but are determined based on the negligence of the
driver and the resultant injury.
13. The deposition of PW-7, Dr. T.S.Bagri, who assessed the
appellant/claimant’s permanent disability, unequivocally supports the
appellant/claimant’s case. He testified that the claimant sustained 30%
permanent disability due to fractures and complications arising from the
accident. The medical records, including X-rays and the disability certificate
8 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -9-
(Ex.P.12), substantiate the injuries and confirm their connection to the
accident. The learned Tribunal’s rejection of this evidence on the ground of
delayed lodging of the FIR is legally untenable. It is a well-settled principle
of law that delay in lodging the FIR, particularly in claims for compensation,
can not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis to discredit the claimant’s case.
14. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs.
Badrinarayan and others, 2011(4) SCC 693, has conclusively held that a
delay in lodging the FIR cannot be deemed fatal to motor claim proceedings,
provided the claimant satisfactorily explain the delay with cogent and
reasonable grounds. The relevant extracts of the same is reproduced as
under:-
“20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be
a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Knowing the
Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a
common man to first rush to the Police Station
immediately after an accident. Human nature and family
responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such
an extent that they give more importance to get the victim
treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under
such circumstances, they are not expected to act
mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with
the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the
ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the
courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer
scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should
also be scrutinised more carefully. If court finds that
there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been
concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons9 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -10-
then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim
case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.
21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases
is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation
of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves
factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a
case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be
the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other
words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor
accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should
not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant
has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent
reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in
genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith
and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of
tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if,
there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such
circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much
more significance than delay in lodging thereof
supported by cogent reasons.”
Therefore, the dismissal of the claim petition on this ground is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
15. Such delay must be evaluated in the context of the facts and
circumstances of each case. In the present matter, the delay is satisfactorily
justified by the claimant’s reliance on the truck driver’s initial assurance to
bear medical expenses. Furthermore, the claim is substantiated by
corroborative evidence, including eye-witness accounts and medical records,
which reinforce the credibility of the claimant’s case. Therefore, the mere
10 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -11-
delay in lodging the FIR does not vitiate the validity of the claim. The
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing
relief to victims of motor accidents. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate
the principles of preponderance of probabilities, which govern the
adjudication of motor accident claims.
16. 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:
11 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -12-
“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 the
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)”
The consistent and corroborated testimonies of PW-1, Jagmal
Singh (eye-witness), and PW-4, appellant/claimant (Satbir), coupled with the
medical evidence, clearly establish that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck.
17. In view of the above, the award dated 14.12.2006 passed by
learned Tribunal stand vitiated by complete absence of application of
judicial mind.
18. 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.
19. A perusal of the award shows that the appellant/claimant was
stated to be working as a Conductor and his monthly income was asserted to
be Rs.5,000/- , however, no documentary evidence qua the same was placed
12 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -13-
on the record. Therefore, under the prevailing facts of the case, the monthly
income of the injured is to be assessed as Rs.2,600/- per month at par with
the minimum wages prescribed for unskilled worker prevailing at the time of
accident in the State of Haryana. Further perusal of the record shows that the
appellant/claimant was aged around 35 years old at the time of accident and
as per disability certificate, Ex.P12, he had suffered permanent disability to
the extent of 30%. The injured on account of the permaent disability
suffered by him in the accident is also entitled to the compensation under the
conventional heads. A perusal of the award further shows that the
appellant/claimant has proved on record medical bills, Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-32.
Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
20. 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 for13 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -14-
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 :
(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
14 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -15-
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
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
15 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -16-
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)].
21. 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;
16 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -17-
(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.”
22. 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’.
17 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -18-
(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
(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
18 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -19-
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/-
transport charges,
nourishment, etc.
19 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -20-
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
23. 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 14.12.2006 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 2,600/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.43,680/- (3,640 X 12)
4 Loss of future earning due to Rs.13,104/- (30% of 43,680)
disability (30%)
5 Multiplier (16) Rs.2,09,664 (13,104 X 16)
6 Medical Expenses Rs.19,616/-
(Rounded off to Rs.20,000/-)
7 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
8 Special Diet Rs.30,000/-
9 Transportation charges Rs.20,000/-
10 Attendant Charges Rs.20,000/-
11 Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.4,49,664/-
20 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:135493
FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -21-
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is hereby directed to
disburse the current scheduled fee to Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate,
within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this
judgment.
27. Disposed of accordingly.
28. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
10.01.2025
Virrendra
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
21 of 21
::: Downloaded on – 16-01-2025 22:36:17 :::
[ad_1]
Source link