Punjab-Haryana High Court
Samey Singh vs Mohd. Yunus And Others on 17 September, 2013
F.A.O. No. 1234 of 2012 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 1234 of 2012 [O&M]
Date of Decision: September 17th, 2013
Samey Singh
.... Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Yunus and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
This is an appeal brought by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. Samay Singh, the claimant suffered injuries in a roadside accident that took place on 3.10.2009. He had brought a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 seeking compensation for his injuries in a sum of `10 lakhs. His claim petition has been allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 21.12.2011 in a sum of `52,900 /-.
Samey Singh has been aged 55 years. He was working as a Prakash Som 2013.09.25 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 1234 of 2012 2 ..
labourer and earning 4,000/- per month. He has spent a sum of ` 1 lakh in his treatment. Consequently, he has prayed for compensation in a sum of ` 10 lakhs.
The respondents resisted the claim petition. They have denied the claimant to have suffered any injury in the accident or to have spent any amount in the treatment. He is denied to deserve any compensation and the claim petition is prayed to be dismissed.
The claimant has been taken to be aged 52 years. He was working as a beldar in Irrigation Department and his salary is taken at 14,102/-. He is found to have suffered 6% permanent disability as per certificate Ex. P9. Learned Tribunal placed reliance on a decision in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another (2011) 1 SCC 343 and considered the disability qua the whole body at 3%, half of the permanent disability qua a particular limb. Learned Tribunal assessed a sum of ` 35,280/- as loss of future income to the claimant on account of the disability. He assessed a sum of ` 2,616/- towards medical expenses, a sum of ` 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of `5,000/- towards transportation and, consequently, assessed a sum of ` 52,900/- as compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the award only on one aspect. According to him, the claimant remained on leave for 5 months and no amount has been assessed as compensation for loss of leave to the claimant. According to him, Jai Parkash, SDC [PW- 3] has stated that the claimant remained on medical leave for 5 months. According to him, for this period of 5 months, his salary should have been allowed as compensation.
Prakash Som 2013.09.25 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 1234 of 2012 3
..
Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that the claimant did not suffer such injury which would have required him to remain on medical leave for 5 months. According to her, adequate compensation has already been assessed in favour of the claimant. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has further submitted that the claimant has been in government service and he has not suffered any reduction in pay on account of the disability and, therefore, the amount of Rs.35,280/- assessed in his favour for loss of future income due to disability has been assessed in excess of what was due to him.
It is true that there has been no reduction in the salary of the claimant on account of the disability. However, the compensation has been assessed on account of the disability which would have been required for loss of enjoyment of life also due to the disability. Moreover, there is neither any appeal nor cross-objection filed by the insurer and, therefore, I am not inclined to consider this submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3.
The only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to salary for five months for which he remained on medical leave during treatment. It is true that hospitalization of the claimant was for a short period. He was admitted in the hospital on the date of accident and was discharged on 7.10.2009. He suffered fracture of tibia. Such fractures confine a person to bed and do not allow him to resume his duties for a period of two or three months. This can be a case of non-union of the bone which may have required him to stay at home for a longer period.
Prakash Som 2013.09.25 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 1234 of 2012 4
..
When Jai Parkash, SDC [PW-3] is stating that the claimant remained on medical leave for five months, there is no reason to disbelieve him. The leave of five months which the claimant utilized in this accident could have been used by him on some other occasion. He is entitled to salary for the said period. Taking his salary at Rs.14,000/- per month, I assess a sum of ` 70,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant for the loss of leave. Adding this amount to Rs.52,900/-, I find the claimant to be entitled to Rs.1,22,900/- as compensation for the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from ` 52,900/- to ` 1,22,900/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 17th, 2013 som Prakash Som 2013.09.25 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document