Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Ors. vs A.V. Unnikrishanan And Ors. on 12 October, 1992
Equivalent citations: II(1994)ACC251
JUDGMENT Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This order will dispose of F.A.F.O. No. 522 of 1985 filed by the State of Punjab and Cross-Objection No. 88-CII of 1985 filed by A.V. Unnikrishanan, claimant, as these arise out of one and the same judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar.
2. For the purpose of order, facts have been taken from F.A.F.O. No. 522 of 1985.
3. Briefly put, the relevant facts for the decision of the case are that A.V. Unnikrishanan, who was 27 years at the time of accident which took place on 9.9.1982, filed claim application before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- as general damages. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. PBQ 4517 driven by Satwant Singh and awarded compensation in the following manner:
Compensation for permanent disability on account of loss of future earnings : Rs. 1,92,000/-
Compensation for loss of amenities of life : Rs. 25,000/-
Compensation for the change of artificial limbs : Rs. 23,600/-
Compensation to engage a servant : Rs. 38,400/-
Compensation on account of medical expenses : Rs. 5,000/-
________________
Total : Rs. 2,84,000/-
________________
4. Aggrieved against the award, the State has filed the F.A.F.O. whereas the claimant has filed the Cross-Objections.
5. The main plea of the State is that the compensation awarded under various heads is excessive inasmuch as compensation, awarded for change of artificial limb and for engaging attendant is not reasonable and is on the higher side. On the other hand, the claimant's case is that his right arm from the shoulder has been amputated. The claimant was an Executive Assistant in a business concern and his promotion chances have receded. The other plea is that the Tribunal has not applied correct multiplier as the claimant was only 27 years of age at the time of the accident.
6. On the consideration of the matter, I have reached the conclusion that compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- for permanent disability on account of loss of right arm and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life, compensation on account of change of artificial limbs to the tune of Rs. 23,600/- have been rightly awarded to the claimant. The claimant was, as already said, above 27 years old at the time of accident. His right arm has been amputated and he has suffered complete disability. He has been deprived of amenities of life. He has to change the artificial limb periodically. Therefore, the compensation awarded to him cannot be said to be on the higher side. The claimant was an Executive Assistant in a business concern. His chances of promotion have been minimised due to permanent disability,
7. In Inderjit Kaur v. Punjab State 1986 ACJ 507 (P&H), claimant, a 27 years old lady, Lecturer in College, her right arm was chopped off in a vehicular accident which took place on May 30, 1976 and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-, i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, Rs. 25,000/- for loss of prospects of marriage, Rs. 25,000/- as cost of an attendant, Rs. 40,000/- for expenses incurred for going abroad and obtaining artificial limbs, Rs. 7,000/- for loss of income and Rs. 3,000/- for medical treatment in India.
8. In Jasbir Kaur v. Harbans Singh 1987 ACJ 508 (P&H), this Court enhanced compensation and awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- to the claimant who was a housewife, 26 years old and whose right arm was amputated.
9. In the instant case, the accident had taken place on 9.9.1982. During this period, purchase capacity of the rupee has considerably lowered. Therefore, by following the ratio in Inderjit Kaur 's case 1986 ACJ 507 (P&H) and Jasbir Kaur's case 1987 ACJ 508 (P&H), I am of the view that the claimant has been awarded reasonable and just compensation and it cannot be termed in any case on higher or lower side.
10. The result is that the F.A.F.O. as well as the cross-objections stand dismissed being devoid of merits.
11. No costs.