Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Ankush And Others on 25 February, 2014
FAO No.5745 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No.26623-CII of 2012 in/and
F.A.O. No.5745 of 2012
Date of decision : 25.02.2014
Sanjay Kumar ...... Appellant
versus
Ankush and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate
for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
for the respondent No.3-insurance company.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
C.M. No.26623-CII of 2012 For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is condoned. F.A.O. No.5745 of 2012
This appeal has been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation and to modify the award dated 12.05.2012 on account of injuries suffered by the appellant, aged 40 years, in a motor vehicle Sharma Ashish 2014.03.25 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5745 of 2012 (O&M) -2- accident.
Dr. Pardeep Aggarwal, PW2, deposed that the nails were inside the body of the appellant and he require another surgery. Dr. Umesh Modi, PW4, assessed the disability at 40% and deposed that he would have difficulty in carrying out his day to day duties. The Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.30,000/- p.a. and held that the loss of earning would not be more than 15%. Further the multiplier of 15 was applied by the Tribunal and the compensation worked out to Rs.67,500/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.2,53,882/- for medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- for loss of future earning, Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for special diet and Rs.15,000/- for attendant charges. The total compensation of Rs.3,96,382/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. was awarded by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was a labourer and there being 40% disability the Tribunal erred in taking the loss of income as 15% and it should have been 20%.
I find logic in this argument and consequently assess the loss of income to be 20%.
Even with regard to future prospects, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that though the judgments in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported as 2013(9) SCC 54 and Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another reported as 2013 AIR SC(Civil) 1731 were both delivered by a bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges and within 10 days of each other, yet now another bench of the Supreme Court consisting of three Hon'ble Judges in Civil Appeal No. 5256 Sharma Ashish 2014.03.25 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5745 of 2012 (O&M) -3- of 2008, Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways decided on 29.01.2014 has considered both the judgments and has leaned in favour of the exposition of law made in Reshma Kumari and others(supra).
In the circumstances, I grant the addition of 30% in the income towards future prospects in view of the observations made by this Court in FAO No. 929 of 2014(O&M), titled as National Insurance Company Limited v. Gurdev Kaur and others, decided on 18.02.2014.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that Dr. Pardeep Aggarwal, PW2, deposed that the nails were inside the body of the appellant and he require another surgery but that has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal.
I find that this is indeed so. Consequently, I award Rs.40,000/- for the said surgery. I further increase the interest to 8% p.a. on the enhanced amount and it is directed that the enhanced amount shall be paid along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. The management would be as per the direction of the Tribunal.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms and the award is modified accordingly.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
February 25, 2014 JUDGE
ashish
Sharma Ashish
2014.03.25 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh