Karnailo Devi vs Sham Lal on 28 January, 2025

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Karnailo Devi vs Sham Lal on 28 January, 2025

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.06.2009 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 read with Section 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant/claimant, whereby the claimant-appellant was awarded Rs.1,05,817/- on account of the injuries suffered by her in the motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 17-08-2008.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, as the 1 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 2 claimant/appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 19%, which was duly proved by way of exhibiting the disability certificate Ex P4. The Tribunal has erred in law in not applying the multiplier method while awarding compensation, as the claimant was 48 years of age. Moreover, a meager amount of compensation was awarded for transportation, pain and sufferings, special diet and attendant charges. Further, no amount of compensation was granted for future prospects, loss of amenities of life and for future treatment. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced as per settled law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He, thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the record shows that the claimant/injured suffered permanent disability to the extent of 19%, which was due to mal-united fracture lower and tibia right side mil restriction of movement at ankle joint with swelling and milt restriction of movement at left ankle joint. The disability certificate was duly proved by way of exhibiting the disability certificate Ex P4. The appellant suffered fracture on both bones lower end and right leg with fracture base of prxomal phalynx of big toe with fracture calcanum left foot.

7. Further the Tribunal has erred in not applying the multiplier method while assessing the compensation, as the claimant was 48 years of age. Moreover, no amount of compensation was awarded for future prospects. Further, the amount awarded for pain and suffering, transportation charges, attendant charges, special diet is on lower side.

2 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 3 SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).

6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :

3 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 4 Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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, 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.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

4 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 5

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:

5 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 6

a) Annual income before the accident : Rs. 36,000/-.

b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/- Illustration 'B' : The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/- .

b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/-

Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-

6 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 7

b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/-

            c) Multiplier applicable (25 years)           : 18

            d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18)     : Rs. 7,56,000/-

[Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)].

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:-

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

" Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum- centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that 7 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 8 we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-

" 7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined by us:

(a) the application of multiplier of '17' instead of '18';

The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be '18' along with factoring in the extent of disability.

The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be '18' and not '17'.

(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep 8 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 9 Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish (supra) in para 8:

"8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:

(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;

(ii) Loss of income including future income;

(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;


          (iv)    Medical expenses including those that the victim may be

                  required to undertake in future; and

          (v)     Loss of expectation of life."

                                                    [emphasis supplied]

The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.

In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under:

"Nature of injury:

          (i)     compound fracture shaft left humerus


                               9 of 13
          ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 :::
                               Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963


FAO-5140-2007 (O&M)                                     10


         (ii)    fracture both bones left forearm

(iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm

(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand

(v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur

(vi) fracture shaft femur

(vii) fracture both bones left leg We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court.

Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration.

We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case.

(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% 10 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 11 In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish's case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court.

CONCLUSION

8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled principles, the calculation of compensation by the appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as follows:

                      Heads                     Awarded
          Loss of earning power Rs. 9,81,978/-
          (Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
          Future prospects (50 per Rs.4,90,989/-
          cent addition)

Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-

          transport         charges,
          nourishment, etc.
          Loss     of       matrimonial Rs.5,00,000/-
          prospects
          Loss of comfort, loss of Rs.1,50,000/-
          amenities and mental agony
          Pain and suffering                 Rs.2,00,000/-
                        Total                Rs.41,69,831/-

The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

11 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 12 RELIEF

11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated 06.06.2009 is modified accordingly. The appellant-claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation from the respondent-Insurance Company only, as per the calculations made here-under:-

      Income                               Rs.3700 per month

      Future Prospect 25%                  Rs.925/- (3700X25%)

      Annual Income                        Rs.55,500 (4625X12)

      Loss on account of 19% disability    Rs.10,545/- (55500X19%)

      Multiplier of 13                     1,37,085/- (10545 X13)

      Medical Expenses                     Rs.38000/-

      Pain and suffering                   Rs.1,00,000/-

      Attendant Charges                    Rs.80,000/-

      Transportation Charges               Rs.50,000/-

      Loss of amenities of life            Rs.80,000/-

      Special Diet                         Rs.50,000/-

      Total compensation awarded:-         Rs.5,35,085/-

      Deduction
      Amount awarded by Tribunal           Rs.1,05,817/-

      Enhanced           amount       of Rs.4,29,268 (535085- 105817)
      compensation

12. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.

13. The Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a 12 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014963 FAO-5140-2007 (O&M) 13 period of two months from today. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the account of the claimant/appellant. The claimant/appellant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal.

14. Further Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current schedule fee to Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, pursuant to order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

15. Disposed of accordingly.

16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE January 28, 2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes 13 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 07:23:50 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court