Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M;) Veena Bansal vs Chd. Transport Undertaking & Anr on 17 December, 2014
1
FAO No.282 of 2001 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.282 of 2001 (O&M)
Date of Decision:17.12.2014
Dr. Mrs. Veena Bansal
.Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Transport Undertaking and another
.Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH
Present: Ms. Mansi Bansal, Advocate for
Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
NAVITA SINGH, J.
1. The appellant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 8.10.1996, has sought enhancement of the compensation granted to her by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide award dated 8.8.2000. She was awarded Rs.90,000/- along with interest, which was cumulatively given for medicines, pain and suffering and transportation etc.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the injured was a doctor, Gynaecologist to be precise and after the accident she had to be given desk job. As she was unable to stand due to 100% disability in one of the lower limbs, she was unable to perform her duties as a Gynaecologist. It was contended that so far as the disability, which was to the tune of 40% in relation to the whole body and 100% qua the limb, is concerned, it did not weigh in the mind of the Tribunal as to what effect the disability had on the life of the appellant. Simply because she was still in service, nothing was awarded towards loss of earning capacity.
ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2014.12.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 2 FAO No.282 of 2001 (O&M)
3. Out of the total amount of Rs.90,000/-, an amount of Rs.16,364.80P. had been spent on medicine etc. and the compensation awarded for all the other heads was something around Rs.73/74,000/-, which was highly inadequate according to the appellant. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that on account of tremendous mental and physical agony and the extent of disability, an amount commensurate to the same should have been awarded, though no amount of money could otherwise compensate the appellant for the disability incurred by her.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported as Pravat Chandra Maity Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others 2008 ACJ 53, where it was held that the injured was entitled to compensation for loss of earning capacity, though he had not lost his job. This was due to the fact that his capability to discharge his duties had reduced and he could not seek employment elsewhere. The Supreme Court held in Dinesh Singh Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd 2014 STPL (Web) 308 SC that because of amputation of the left leg, the injured suffered 80% permanent disability and he had to take up a desk job. It was held that in such event, the compensation under the head `loss of earning' was wrongly disallowed. Similarly in Sanjay Batham Vs. Munnalal Parihar and others 2011 ACJ 2869, the Supreme Court awarded compensation for loss of earning capacity and future treatment to the injured, who had otherwise not become permanently disabled for doing any work.
5. The appellant, who by dint of her hard work, qualified to be a doctor and chose the stream of Gynaecology but due to the disability, was deprived of her capability to work in that capacity. Her mental pain on that count was permanent as she lost the ability to do the work of her choice. Due to the injuries, ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2014.12.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 3 FAO No.282 of 2001 (O&M) she was forced to do desk job. Also after her retirement from the job in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, she would not be able to set up private practice as a Gynaecologist. The extent of disability and the consequent pain and suffering was not adequately compensated by the Tribunal. Her salary at the relevant time was Rs.12,000/- per month and, therefore, compensation for loss of earning capacity should have been granted. It is, therefore, held that the appellant would be entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity in relation to the disablement, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the disability, further an amount of Rs.50,000/- for special diet and attendant etc. and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering.
6. The appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
(NAVITA SINGH) JUDGE 17.12.2014 ishwar Whether to be referred to reporter: Yes ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL 2014.12.18 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document