Himachal Pradesh High Court
Prem Chand vs Yoginder Kumar & Another on 22 November, 2022
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No. 150 of 2014
Reserved on: 10.11.2022
.
Date of decision: 22.11.2022.
Prem Chand ...Appellant
Versus
Yoginder Kumar & another ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellant : Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj & Mr. Sanjay
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. J. N. Kanwar, Advocate, vice
counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge:
By way of instant appeal, the appellant has sought enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded in his favour by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 3.1.2014, in MAC Petition No. 49-S/2 of 2007.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -2-2. The appellant was victim of accident involving motor vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-14-7703. The accident had .
occurred on 23.11.2005 near Old Panchkula, Haryana. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and was being driven by one Sh. Sunil Kumar at the time of accident, who had died as a result of injuries suffered by him in the same accident. The right arm of appellant had to be amputated. As per medical opinion, the appellant had suffered disablement to the extent of 75% towards whole body.
3. The appellant preferred claim petition for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act"). He pleaded his monthly income to be Rs.
4000/- per month from all sources. As per appellant, he was employed as a driver before accident by Sh. Manmohan Singh, resident of Village Bashal, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. Appellant alleged that on account of permanent disability suffered by him, he was not able to drive the vehicle and was also unable to indulge in agriculture pursuits, which he had been doing on the land belonging to his father before accident.
4. The owner of the vehicle filed reply to the claim petition and submitted that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. CH-01E-
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -3-7577. It was also been submitted that FIR No. 537 dated 24.11.2005 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304 of .
IPC at Police Station Panchkula. The occupation of the vehicle by the appellant at the time of accident was not denied. It was submitted that the appellant was traveling in the vehicle as owner of the goods.
5. Respondent No.2 insurer in its reply has submitted that the vehicle No. HP-14-7703 was being plied at the time of accident in violation of the terms of the policy. It was also submitted that the accident had taken place on account rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. CH-01E-7577.
6. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues: -
i) Whether the petitioner was injured in accident and entitled for compensation? OPP.
ii) Whether respondent No.2 is liable to make
payment of compensation amount as
indemnifier? OPP.
iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable?
OPR.
iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPR.
v) Whether the vehicle in question was driven in breach of terms and conditions of the policy? OPR.
vi) Relief.
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -4-Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and rest of the issues were decided in negative. The petition was .
allowed and the appellant was held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,61,250/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition. A sum of Rs.
1,46,250/- was awarded by learned Tribunal on account of loss of income, Rs. 5000/- were awarded as compensation on account of pain and sufferings and Rs. 10,000/- were awarded as charges incurred by the appellant on medical expenses.
7. The learned Tribunal found that appellant had not been able to prove his income and, on such assumption, held the appellant entitled to Rs. 15000/- per annum being his notional income, as provided in 2nd Schedule to the Act.
Learned Tribunal held the age of the appellant on the date of accident about 45 years. Multiplier of 13 was applied as prescribed under the aforesaid schedule. The notional income of claimant at the rate of 15000/- per annum was multiplied by 13 and the sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- so derived was reduced by 25% as the disability of appellant was assessed at 75%.
8. Respondents have accepted the award and have not assailed the same.
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -5-9. Aggrieved against inadequacy of award, appellant has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal.
.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
11. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 163A be treated as one under Section 166 of the Act. He contended that the rights of appellant have been seriously prejudiced by not filing the petition under Section 166 of the Act. The submission so made deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the appellant, during the pendency of proceedings of claim petition before learned Tribunal, had moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to convert the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and to amend the pleadings accordingly. However, the prayer made in the said application was given up by the appellant on 14.6.2012 before the learned Tribunal. Once such prayer was given up by the appellant voluntarily, he cannot be allowed to make the same prayer again before this Court.
12. Learned Tribunal found that appellant had failed to prove his income that he used to earn before accident. Such ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -6- findings need interference by this Court for the reason that learned Tribunal had failed to notice the unrebutted versions of .
claimant regarding his occupation and income. The claimant had appeared as his own witness and submitted his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ext. PW-1/A. In para-1 of the said affidavit, appellant had categorically mentioned that he was working as a driver with one Sh. Manmohan Singh, S/o Sh. Netar Singh on his vehicle No. HP-14-7703 and used to be paid total Rs. 4000/- per month i.e. salary of Rs. 3000/-
besides daily allowance. An income of Rs. 1000/- per month was additionally claimed from agriculture pursuits. This part of the statement of appellant had remained unrebutted. He had not been cross-examined in this respect at all. It was only suggested to him that his income was not Rs. 4000/- per month, which he had denied. In light of unrebutted statement of claimant and there being no other evidence to the contrary, the assessment drawn by learned Tribunal, as regards monthly income of claimant, cannot be said to be justified or legal.
Learned Tribunal could have applied the notional income in the case of appellant in case he was not able to earn anything before accident. As noticed above, there was evidence on record in the shape of unrebutted statement of the appellant by way of ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -7- an affidavit, which was sufficient to infer that the appellant was having an income of Rs. 4000/- per month before accident. To .
support such view reliance can be placed on following extract from the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmibai vs Bhagwantbuva reported in 2013 (4) SCC 97 "40. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination-in-chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him is ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -8- not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate .
opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See Khem Chand v. State of H.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 7 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 1994 SC 226] , State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh [(1998) 3 SCC 561 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 850 : AIR 1998 SC 1328] , Rajinder Parshad v. Darshana Devi [(2001) 7 SCC 69 : AIR 2001 SC 3207] and Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2005) 9 SCC 283 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1230 :
AIR 2005 SC 1096] .)"
14. Even otherwise the findings returned by learned Tribunal in this regard were unreasonable as it cannot be presumed that a person at the age of 45 years would not be earning even a single penny. In Chandra alias Chandraram & another vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & another reported in 2022 (1) SCC 198, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of any documentary proof regarding the income, some amount of guess work is permissible and is required to be done.
15. Thus, there was evidence on record which suggested that appellant had income of atleast 4000/- per month before he met with the accident.::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -9-
16. Since the appellant had claimed compensation under Section 163A of the Act and his permanent disability was .
proved, he was entitled for compensation as per Clauses 4 and 5 of IInd Schedule appended to the Act which read as under: -
4. General damages in case of injuries and disabilities:
(i) Pain and Sufferings
(a) Grievous injuries Rs. 5000/-
(b)Non-grievous injuries Rs. 1000/-
(ii) Medical Expenses-actual expenses
incurred supported by bills/vouchers but not Rs. 15,000/-
exceeding as one time payment
5. Disability in non-fatal accidents:
The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising on account of non-fatal accidents:
Los of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty-two weeks PLUS either of the following: -
(a) In case of permanent total disablement, the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or
(b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item
(a) above.
Injuries deemed to result in
Permanent total
disablement/Permanent Partial
Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule 1 under workmen's compensation Act, 1923 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -10-
17. Clause-5, as noticed above, of the IInd Schedule speaks about calculation of payable compensation on the basis .
of "loss of income". As held above appellant had monthly income of Rs. 4000/-. Though the disablement of appellant was assessed at 75% but his functional disability would be to the extent of 100%. With one arm, he will not be able to drive the vehicle. He was a professional driver and on account of aforesaid disablement, his source of income was snatched.
Thus, the appellant had suffered 100% loss of his income.
18. It is now a settled proposition that a victim of Motor Vehicles Accident, having suffered permanent disablement, is entitled for consideration of loss of future prospects while assessing compensation under the Act. At this stage, following excerpts from judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav Vs Naresh Kumar reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424 can be gainfully noticed:-
"3. While assessing loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal took the appellant's income to be Rs. 8000 per month, and added 50% towards future prospects. At the time of the accident, the appellant was only 20 years of age. Therefore, a multiplier of 18 was applied. The physical disability was assessed to be 45%, by the Tribunal. The High Court, to which the claimant appealed (and the insurer cross appealed), ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -11- revised this head of compensation by doing away with the addition of 50% towards future prospects, and reassessed the compensation for loss of earning .
capacity as Rs. 7,77,600 (Rs.8000 x 12 x 45% x 18).
The total compensation was reassessed by the High Court to be Rs.14,36,600, after enhancing the compensation for disfigurement, diet, attendant and conveyance, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering. Further, an interest of 9% per annum was imposed. In reducing the amount awarded for loss of future prospects, the High Court noticed this court's judgments in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. and Jagdish v.
Mohan & Ors both by three-judge benches of this court.
4. The appellant argues that the impugned judgment is in material error, in misreading this court's judgments in Pranay Sethi & Ors which was later clarified in Jagdish (2018) 4 SCC 571 by a three judge Bench, which had ruled that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self- employed individuals, and in case of self- employed persons an addition of 40% of established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. It was urged that the decision in Anant s/o of Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap s/o Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr. relied on by the High Court, did not assess future ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -12- prospects. However, that per se did not preclude claims by persons incurring permanent disablement as a consequence of motor accidents, from seeking .
such heads of compensation. It is urged that the High Court misread and created a distinct category of cases where addition in income towards "future prospects" can only be given in case of death, and not for injury, which cannot be the intention of this court as no such observation is made. It was argued that the High Court should have reassessed and not reduced 'the loss of future earning capacity' of the appellant from Rs. 11,66,400/- (determined by the tribunal) to Rs. 7,77,600/- on the wrongly depressed income of Rs. 8000/-. Learned counsel submitted that the assessment of monthly income should have been Rs.12,000/- and not Rs.8,000/. It was submitted that the courts below ignored the fact that in 2012, persons earning Rs.12, 000/- per month did not have to file income tax returns or pay tax. The High Court further erred in assessment of physical permanent disability of injured as 45%, even though it was 100%.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -13- Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in .
Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.
10. The recent decision in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, involved an accident victim who underwent surgery for hemiplegia. According to the treating medic, he could not work as a labourer or perform any agricultural work, or work as a driver (as he was wont to); the assessment of his disability was at 75%, and of a permanent nature. The court held that:
"5.2. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the employer of the appellant, we accept that the income of the appellant was Rs 10,000 p.m. at the time of the accident, for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to him.::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -14-
5.1. The appellant has however, produced an affidavit by his employer in this Court. As per the said affidavit, the appellant was .
earning Rs 10,000 p.m. at the time of the accident.
5.3. Taking the income of the appellant as Rs 10,000 p.m., with future prospects @ 50% as awarded by the High Court, the total income of the appellant would come to Rs 15,000 p.m. 5.4. The appellant was 23 years old at the time when the accident occurred. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of future earnings suffered by the appellant would work out to Rs 15,000 × 12 × 18 = Rs 32,40,000 5.7. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (2012) 12 SCC 274, this Court held that:
"10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have 15 (2019) 7 SCC 217 16 Weakness of one half of the body on the left side; in this case, caused by an accident. 17 at page 279, para 10 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -15- earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broadbased.
.
Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just compensation" should be inhered."
5.9. In the present case, it is an admitted position that it is not possible for the appellant to get employed as a driver, or do any kind of manual labour, or engage in any agricultural operations whatsoever, for his sustenance. In such circumstances, the High Court has rightly assessed the appellant's functional disability at 100% insofar as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The appellant is, therefore, awarded Rs 32,40,000 towards loss of earning capacity."
11. Yet later and more recently in an accident case, which tragically left in its wake a young girl in a life- long state of paraplegia, this court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, 18 reiterated that in addition to loss of earnings, compensation for future prospects too could be factored in, and observed that:
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -16-"14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, (1979) .
4 SCC 365 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 996 : 1980 ACJ 55] , this Court held : (SCC p. 366, para 2) "2. ... the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales."
15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 250] , dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held thus : (SCC p. 556, para 9) "9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money;
whereas nonpecuniary damages are
those which are incapable of being
assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -17- pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of .
profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] , this Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries : (SCC p. 348, para 6) ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -18- "6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, 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, ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -19- 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."
17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 :
(2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638] , this Court held as follows :
(SCC p. 276, para 2) "2. ... There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."
Loss of earnings ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -20-
20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 .
p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable 14 to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs 14,66,000."
12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -21- compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi principle)."
.
19. As noticed above the method for calculation of compensation under clause 5 of IInd Schedule appended to the Act relates multiplication of "loss of income'' with applicable multiplier meaning thereby that particular number of future years of claimant are taken into consideration. Thus, while considering future prospects while assessing loss of income, a claim petition under Section 163A cannot be an exception. By applying the above principle as laid down in Jagdish Vs Mohan (2018)4 SCC 571, a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as 25% of the income was liable to be added to the loss of income of appellant.
20. Thus, the income of the appellant was assessable at Rs. 5000/- per month and his annual income would be assessed at Rs. 60,000/-. However, under clause 5 of IInd Schedule to the Act, injuries deemed to result in Permanent total disablement/Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity are to be reckoned as per Schedule 1 under workmen's compensation Act, 1923.
21. By applying the parameters provided in Schedule 1 under workmen's compensation Act, 1923, the ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -22- case of the appellant fell under part II of the said Schedule and will be considered as 'Permanent Partial Disablement' .
with 80% loss of earning capacity as the appellant had suffered amputation from elbow. Thus his annual income would have been considered at 80% i.e. Rs. 48,000/-
instead of Rs. 60,000/- and the appellant was entitled to following amounts as compensation:
i) Rs. 4000/- per month for 52 weeks (13 months) = 4000 x 13= Rs. 52,000/-
ii) Rs. 4000 x12 x13 = Rs. 6,24,000/-.
22. Since the appellant has suffered permanent disability, there was no requirement to make any further deduction out of income towards personal and living expenses.
Reference in this regard can be made to 2011 (1) SCC 343, titled as Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & another, which reads as under: -
"In the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to the claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore, there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage from ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS -23- out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses."
.
23. Keeping in view the above discussions, the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. vide Award dated 3.1.2014, in MAC Petition No. 49-S/2 of 2007 needs modification to the extent as noticed above. The amount of Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses awarded by learned Tribunal needs no interference.
24. In result, the appellant is held entitled to the compensation as under: -
Rs.52,000+Rs 6,24,000+10,000+5000= Rs. 6,91,000/-
25. In addition, the appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization of the amount. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya)
22nd November, 2022 Judge
(kck)
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:33:40 :::CIS