Himachal Pradesh High Court
Honey Kumar @ Sanju vs Shri Prem Dhiman & Anr on 25 November, 2019
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 457 of 2011 .
Reserved on: 16.11.2019 Date of decision: 25th November, 2019 Honey Kumar @ Sanju ...Appellant/Petitioner Versus Shri Prem Dhiman & Anr. ....Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ragini Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. O. P. Negi, Advocate, for
respondent No. 2.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation amount. Since, the question regarding the factum of accident as also injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident has attained finality, therefore, this Court need not delve into detail and suffice it to state that the appellant/petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 2 the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the "Act'), claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
.
2. It was alleged that the petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident which took place on 29.09.2003 at about 11:40 PM, while the petitioner was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing No. HP-40-6541, which was being driven by one Gorav son of Ram Parshad and when they reached near Polytechnic College, Kangra, a bike bearing No. HP-40-7769 came from the opposite side which was being driven by Aditya Dhiman (now deceased) son of respondent No. 1-Prem Dhiman in a rash and negligent manner and the same hit the motorcycle being driven by Gorav due to which they fell down and sustained multiple injuries on their person.
3. The appellant/petitioner has sustained injuries on his legs, hands, face, wrist head and on various parts of the body and became unconscious. Thereafter, petitioner/injured was shifted to SDH, Kangra and after providing first aid, he was shifted to DMC, Ludhiana where he remained indoor patient from 30.09.2003 to January 10, 2004 for about four and half months and had to spend Rs. 3,50,000/- for his treatment and Rs.1,00,000/- for other expenses i.e. travelling, attendant, diet etc. The petitioner/ appellant was a student and was also running a shop in Mandir Bazar and earning about Rs.10,000/- per month ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 3 and due to the accident had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and also one year of study.
.
4. As usual the claim petition was contested not only by Shri Prem Dhiman - respondent No. 1 but also by the Insurance Company.
5. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence and evaluating the same concluded that even though the petitioner had sustained 40% disability on account of injuries but the same could not be taken to be in respect of whole of the body and such disability was assessed about 10%. The income of the petitioner was taken to be Rs.2,000/- per month and thereafter a multiplier of 18 was applied and the petitioner was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 200x12x18=Rs.43,200/-. In addition thereto, the petitioner was held entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of pain and suffering. In this way petitioner was held entitled to Rs.48,200/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.
6. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation granted by the Tribunal below, the claimant has filed the instant appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 47. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
.
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 vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd.
- 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC
467).
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
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 :::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 5
(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).
longevity).
r to
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal 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.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 6 contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the .
assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) elaborately discussed upon the factors which determine the loss of income of the claimant more objectively and considered in great detail the co-relation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it.
9. It shall be apposite to quote the relevant observations, which reads as under:
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 7 of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent .
disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in. some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 ALLSCR 2475 and Yadava Kumar Vs. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 ALLSCR 2833.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 8 was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and .
functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
10. The appellant-claimant was 19 years of age at the time of occurrence of the accident and it is established on record that he was earning his livelihood by running a shop.
11. The issue regarding calculation of prospective increment of income in future of self employed individuals, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish vs. Mohan and others (2018) 4 SCC 571, wherein it was categorically held that the awards in motor accidents cases of death or injury are now to be judged and determined in light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, and it was observed as under:-
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;::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 9
(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.
9. In Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 10 SCC 756 , this Court held:
"15.The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the raccident."
10. In K Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 this Court adverted to the earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh (1990) 3 SCC 723 and B Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited (2011) 6 SCC 420. The Court held that compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for the first head relates to the impairment of a person's capacity while the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself.
11. In Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited (2011) 10 SCC 683, this Court adverted to the earlier decisions in R D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (Pvt) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1, Reshma Kumari v Madam Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422, Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Company Limited (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 and held thus:
::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 10"18.In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 .
SCC 343 must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." (Id at page 693) These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v MD Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2012) 10 SCC 177 delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was).
12. Having regard to these principles, it would be now appropriate to assess the case of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. The accident took place on 24 November 2011. The appellant was a skilled carpenter and self-employed. The claim of the appellant that his earnings were Rs. 6,000/-per month cannot be discarded. This claim cannot be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic assessment of the situation on the date of the accident.
13. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court has held 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. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 11 enhancement of Rs. 2400/-towards loss of future prospects.
.
14. In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing - at least in the facts of this case - can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity.
12. Adverting to the award passed by the learned Tribunal, it would be noticed that none of the factors, which otherwise determine the loss of income as laid down in Raj Kumar's case (supra), were kept in view or taken into consideration while passing the award, even though the said judgment had been rendered prior to the award passed by the learned Tribunal below.
::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 1213. Now adverting to the heads under which the compensation is to be awarded in personal injury cases, this .
Court proceeds to award the same as under:-
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.
Pecuniary damages
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
14. It would be noticed that petitioner after sustaining injuries was shifted to SDH, Kangra and thereafter shifted to DMC, Ludhiana. He remained as indoor patient from 30.09.2003 to January 10, 2004 for more than 100 days and was operated upon. Obviously the petitioner during this time had spend a considerable amount on treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
15. As a matter of fact the petitioner had placed on record medical bills but the same was only tendered by the ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 13 counsel and marked as MarkA-1 to Mark A-155. There is nothing on record or even remotely suggests that the bills were not .
genuine.
16. In Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2013) 4 ACJ 2161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where a large number of medical bills and vouchers were produced by the claimant, who was injured in accident towards surgeries conducted upon her and payment made to various hospital and nursing homes alongwith purchase of medicines. Some of the documents were marked in evidence and some other documents were objected to by counsel for the instance company for making them exhibits without raising tenable objections. The Tribunal neither upheld nor rejected the objection raised but has taken those documents into consideration while awarding pecuniary damages.
17. The question then arises as to whether the Tribunal was justified in accepting those vouchers in the absence of rebuttal evidence. Upholding the action of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as under:-
13. Point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered together as they are interrelated with each other, by assigning the following reasons:
The High Court has gravely erred both on facts and in law in interfering with the impugned judgment and award of ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 14 the Tribunal in reducing the pecuniary damages awarded towards medical expenses incurred by the appellant .
herein from Rs.17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/- solely on the ground that there is no documentary evidence in relation to the amount spent towards medical expenses which is awarded by the Tribunal. This assumption by the learned Judge of High Court is factually not correct. As could be seen from the record, there are large number of medical bills and vouchers produced by the appellant for having spent the money towards the surgeries conducted upon her and payment made to the various Hospitals and Nursing Homes namely, V.S.S. Medical Hospital, Burla, Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneshwar, Nursing Home, Cuttack along with purchase of medicines for the aforesaid period which run to Rs.17,51,726/-. The above said factual aspects are stated in unequivocal terms in her statement of evidence, and she has also referred to the documents such as bills, receipts and vouchers obtained by her from various medical stores on the basis of the prescriptions of the doctors who have treated her. Some of the documents were marked in the evidence of PW-3 - the appellant herein and she had spoken about the expenses incurred towards her treatment and purchase of medicines. In relation to some other documents, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has objected for making them exhibits without raising tenable objections. The learned member of the Tribunal neither upheld nor rejected the objection raised by the counsel on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company at the time of marking documents through the appellant in her evidence. Nonetheless, the learned member of the Tribunal has taken those documents into consideration and has awarded compensation under pecuniary damages having regard to the clinching evidence on record that the ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 15 surgeries were conducted and treatment was taken by her in various hospitals and Nursing Homes for a period of .
four years. The correctness of the said claim is examined by us with reference to the documents in Ann. P-7 produced in this case, in which date-wise particulars with regard to the name of the Institutions and Medical Stores, the expenses incurred and bill numbers, payment made for the purpose of conducting blood tests, purchase of medicines, purchase of blood from the blood bank and cost of surgeries spent by the appellant are given. The Tribunal, in the absence of rebuttal evidence and the nature of cross examination of the appellant- PW3 made by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company and the evidence adduced by the appellant herein and the claim made by her under the pecuniary damages towards the medical expenses, tests, surgeries etc. and other incidental purposes, has accepted and has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 17,51,726/- under the heading of medical expenses. The same has been arbitrarily and unreasonably, without assigning any cogent and valid reason, interfered with by the High Court and it has erroneously modified the judgment by reducing the amount from Rs. 17,51,726/- to Rs. 7,77,000/-. This has been very lightly interfered with by the learned Judge of the High Court without application of mind and consideration of legal evidence on record particularly in the absence of rebuttal evidence and further, the Insurance Company was unable to show that the documents referred to supra produced by the appellant in her evidence are fabricated documents, which have been produced with deliberate intention to prefer a false claim in this regard as contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company. We have carefully examined the evidence on record and the findings of the ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 16 Tribunal to examine as to whether the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment for reduction .
of pecuniary damages from Rs.17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/- is correct. On careful perusal of the evidence and documents produced by the appellant we have to hold that the finding and reason recorded by the High Court is wholly erroneous in law as the same is contrary to the facts pleaded and proved by producing evidence on record. Therefore, the same requires to be interfered with by this Court in these appeals. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in the affirmative in favour of the appellant. The finding and reason recorded by the High Court in not awarding just and reasonable compensation under the various heads of non pecuniary damages for which she is legally entitled to on the basis of proven facts, legal evidence on record and law laid down by this Court, is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law. On this aspect, separate reasons are assigned while answering point Nos. (iii) & (iv).
18. Reverting back to the facts of the case, it would be noticed that the claimant in the claim petition has been specifically stated that he had spent a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- for his treatment and Rs.1,00,000/- for other expenses i.e. for travelling, attendant, diet etc. and while appearing in the Court as PW2 he has specifically stated that he has spent nearly Rs. 4- 5 Lacs in his treatment and while being cross-examined, he specifically denied the suggestion that he had not spent the aforesaid amount on his treatment and further denied the ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 17 suggestion that the medical bills produced by him were forged.
However, it would be noticed that the medical bills were marked .
as Mark A-1 to Mark A-150 in the statement of the claimant but were tendered in evidence by counsel alongwith Discharge Card mark as A-152 to A-155. Meaning thereby that the opposite party(ies) i.e. owner and insurance company had no opportunity whatsoever to cross-examine the claimant.
19. Nonetheless, the question arises as to whether for the fault of the Counsel, can the petitioner be made to suffer.
The answer is obviously in negative. It is more than settled that no litigant can suffer for the fault of his counsel. Admittedly, the petitioner remained hospitalised for more than 100 days and it requires no Solomon Wisdom to conclude that during this time, the petitioner underwent surgery and must have incurred expenses relating to his treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenses. The costs of medicines as per medical bills mark A-1 to Mark A-150 alone work out to Rs. 1,34,253/- but for want of proof the said amount cannot be awarded in favour of the claimant. However, taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly the fact that the petitioner remains admitted for more than 100 days, I proceed to award as sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 18ii (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability .
20. In order to assess the loss of further earning, this Court is required to work out the earning/income of the injured.
The learned Tribunal has worked out the loss of income to be Rs.
200/- per month but then unfortunately the future prospects in terms of Pranay Sethi and Jagdish cases (supra) have not been worked out.
21. to The injured was of 19 years of age and self employed therefore, an addition of 40% of the established income was required to be made where the age of the victim at the time of accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the petitioner would be entitled to enhancement of Rs. 280/- per month. His income is required to be worked out Rs. 280/- per month towards loss of future prospects and in this manner the petitioner would be entitled to 280x12x18=Rs.60,480/- and not Rs. 43,200/- as worked out by the learned Tribunal below.
(a) Loss of future earning during the period of treatment
22. Since the petitioner remained hospitalised for over four months, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the loss of income 2800x5=Rs.14,000/- rounded off to Rs.15,000/-.
::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 19(iii) Future Medical expenses
24. Since, there is no evidence led by the petitioner .
regarding future medical expenses, which may be required to be undertaken in future, therefore, no sum under this head could be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
Non-pecuniary damages -Damages for pain and suffering.
25. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of pain and suffering, which is far too less and the same is increased to Rs.20,000/-
Loss of amenities or loss of prospect of marriage
26. The petitioner admittedly was of 19 years of age at the time of accident and has suffered 40% disability of the body therefore, it is not difficult to visualize that the injuries has resulted not only the loss of amenities but also the loss of marriage prospect. In the given circumstances, I deem it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner on account of loss of amenities including loss of marriage prospects. It is proved by the Dr. Gurdshan Gupta, Member of the Medical Board, who had examined the petitioner on 22.08.2005 and had found him to be permanently disabled to the extent of 40% on account of old supracondilor right femur with fracture patella right with fracture upper end tibia right with residual stiff knee and on the ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP 20 basis of that had issued him a certificate No. 1198 dated 20.08.2005. On the point of marriage prospect, I feel that it is a .
major loss keeping in mind the young age of the petitioner.
Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
27. Since there is no positive evidence or any suggestion put to the doctor regarding the loss of expectation of life of the petitioner on account of the injuries sustained by him, therefore, no amount under this head can be awarded to the petitioner.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,45,480/- instead of Rs. 48,200/-. As regards the interest of 7.5% awarded by the learned Tribunal below from the date of filing of the petition till its realization on the unapid amount only, I see no reason to interfere.
29. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
25th November, 2019 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(sanjeev) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:27:25 :::HCHP