Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh vs Parmod & Anr on 10 December, 2014
Author: Fateh Deep Singh
Bench: Fateh Deep Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2604 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10th December, 2014
Rajesh
Appellant
Versus
Parmod and another
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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. Surender Saini, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.
Appellant/claimant/injured Rajesh by this invocation has sought enhancement of compensation granted by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat through Award dated 27.02.2013 for the injuries received by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 25.01.2011 at about 8.30 a.m. in the area of Siri Nagar Colony, District Sonepat resulting in amputation of his right leg below the knee.
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court FAO No.2604 of 2013 (O&M) 2
Upon hearing Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate for the appellant/claimant and Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate representing the insurer/respondent No.2.
The findings that the accident was as a consequence of rash and negligent driving of the offending Eicher Canter bearing registration No.HR-69-2586 have since been attained finality. Admittedly, the claimant is a bachelor aged around 21/22 years working as a waiter at a Dhaba. Though it is claimed that he was getting `4,000 per month besides food and lodging and the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be `4,000 per month as a labourer, however, in view of the unrebutted evidence and stand of the claimant which even learned counsel for the insurer could not displace that by that analogy in all likelihood the claimant must be getting `4,600 per month and since he has been thrown out of the job because of his permanent disability which is 80% and which would certainly have its repercussions on his day to day activities/earnings, future matrimonial prospects so on and so forth, `4,600 is taken to be his earnings which he has been denied. The fact that after his initial treatment at General Hospital, Gohana from where he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak where he remained admitted from 25.01.2011 to 01.03.2011, from 31.05.2011 to 08.06.2011 and from 09.07.2011 to 23.07.2011 and the deposition of the claimant as PW1 and that of PW3 Dr.R.K. Kataria and disability certificate Ex.PW3/A, MLR Ex.P1 leaves no scope to doubt that amputation of the right leg would have far reaching consequences which have never been taken into account by the RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court FAO No.2604 of 2013 (O&M) 3 learned Tribunal, as has been submitted on behalf of the appellant. Thus, drawing support from 'R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited' 1995 (2) PLR 298 SC and having regard to all these repercussions, the claimant is certainly entitled to compensation under the following heads:
(A) Pecuniary Compensation
(i) Compensation assessed on account of `60,000/-
loss of income during hospitalization
(ii) Compensation assessed on account of `50,000/-
services of attendant, special diet and
conveyance
(iii) Compensation assessed on account of `4,50,000/-
physical disability/permanent loss of
income by this disability.
(iv) Compensation assessed on account of `2,25,000/-
expenses incurred on medical treatment
- past and future, including implants
(B) Non-Pecuniary Compensation
(i) Compensation assessed on account of `2,00,000/-
loss of beauty/pleasures of life and
longevity
(ii) Compensation assessed on account of `50,000/-
future prospects, matrimony etc.
Total `10,35,000/-
Since the learned Tribunal has failed to take cognizance of these vital factors and has thus erred and the Award certainly is on the lower side. Thus, the amount of compensation is enhanced to `10,35,000 (rupees ten lacs thirty five thousand). Besides this, the appellant/claimant is also entitled to interest @7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal till realization. Interim compensation paid, if any, shall be adjusted. Rest of the RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court FAO No.2604 of 2013 (O&M) 4 findings, including liability, have neither been challenged and thus, finding it to be legally sustainable, is therefore upheld.
In view of these discussions, the instant appeal stands allowed in those terms.
(FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE December 10, 2014 rps RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court