========================================== Jai Prakash Singh, son of Chandradeep Singh, R/o – Village Sonhar, P.S. – v. 1. Pappu Kumar Singh, son of Bachan Singh, MUgalsarai
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.137 of 2011 ========================================== Jai Prakash Singh, son of Chandradeep Singh, R/o – Village Sonhar, P.S. – Shivsagar, District – Rohtas. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Pappu Kumar Singh, son of Bachan Singh, MUgalsarai (Chandasi), District – Varanasi (U.P.) ------Opposite Party No. 1 --Respondent 2. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Ganesh Market Opposite Anandi Cinema, G.T. Road, Sasaram, Rohtas. -----Opposite Party No. 2---Respondent ========================================= Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ramchandra Lal Das For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar ========================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL ORDER 12 12-02-2013 1. The claimant appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the award granted to him as a result of grievous injury sustained by him causing physical disability by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rohtas at Sasaram, on 8th September 2009 in M.V. Case No. 152/2002/34/2009. 2. The appellant sustained injuries on 07.10.2000 at the age of about 28 years when he was earning Rs. 120/- per day from his business suffered an accident with a Truck bearing Registration No. UMH – 9937 which dashed the Tempo wherein the claimant was traveling. The injury sustained by him compelling to undergo prolonged treatment initially at Sasaram and thereafter in a Hospital at Varanashi, caused expenditure of Rs. 35,000/-. He claimed compensation of Rs. 2 2,50,000/- but on analyzing the materials only a sum of Rs. 1,77,873/- was awarded and reducing Rs. 25,000/- paid as ad- interim compensation. The insurer was directed to pay the claimant a sum of Rs. 1,52,873/- with interest @ 6% per annum. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that notional income of the claimant per annum has been assessed as 15,000/- whereas it must have been Rs. 36,000/- per annum in the light of the decision of Apex Court in a case of Laxmi Devi and Ors Vs. Md. Tabbar and Ors since reported in 2008(12) SCC 165, and claim tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs. 15,000/- against pain and suffering from grievous injuries and medical expenses, only Rs. 10,873/- had given. Whereas in the light of decision of the Apex Court in case of Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. since reported in 2012 (2) PLJR 142, it should have been much more. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel representing the insurer that though in the pleading claimant appellant has come out with the case of earning Rs. 120 per day, but neither there is any oral nor documentary evidence in this regard, so the grievances against the notional income is baseless, in fact, there is no material to even apply the principle of notional income and about medical expenditure etc. Whatever materials were 3 produced claim tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. 4. It is undisputed that in spite of pleading there is no evidence on the income of the claimant appellant but in
Facts
absence of any case put forward by either of the parties about any income of the appellant, claim tribunal has rightly adopted the theory of notional income, but, at the same time, it has considered only the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as „Act‟). 5. As per decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Legal Reasoning
Laxmi Devi (supra) and further relied upon by this court in case of Chinta Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager since reported in 2012 (4) PLJR 984; it should have been 36,000/- per annum. Taking into consideration age group of the claimant appellant, the multiplier 18 is to be applied and this brings the total income of the claimant appellant to the tune of Rs. 36,000 x 18 = Rs. 6,48,000/- and since undisputedly, he has suffered disability of 60%, the amount of compensation may be reduced to 60% of the total thus, it comes to the tune of Rs. 3,88,800/-. 6. Under the heading of medical expenses claim tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,873/- and this amount is based on the consolidated verified bill produced by the claimant, as exhibit – 12, wherein different receipts/vouchers of purchase of medicines, produced as exhibit 5 to 10 series excluding only 4 exhibit 10/4 for Rs. 50/- and exhibit 4 series of worth Rs. 570/- totaling to Rs. 620/-. The Claim tribunal has committed no error in not including this amount towards expenditure since they are not certified by the competent authority who issued exhibit - 12 a composite medical bill even taking liberal view based on the receipts being issued by different wings of the hospital not ony carries meager amount but also in consonance with Medical prescription exhibit – 11, this amount of Rs. 620/- is included, it may bring the expenditure up to Rs. 11,500/-. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav (supra), in paragraph 15 has come to the conclusion that the decision of the Apex Court in Arbind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. since reported in 2010(10) SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar since reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343; must be followed by all the tribunals and the High Court in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident who are disable 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 at his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to accident. 5 8. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, relevant portion of decision in Raj Kumar case (supra) has been referred which reads as such: “The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the 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 the 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. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:- Pecuniary damages (Special damages) 6 (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 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.” 9. There is no evidence on record to show the 7 expenditures incurred by the claimant appellant for traveling and other heads besides any need of future treatment etc. He has suffered only 60% of disability so in the given, case in absence of any specific pleading and details of other expenditures, one is to, taking into consideration other materials available, simply assess the loss etc. by own wisdom. Thus, apart from the amount of compensation calculated above, the consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- more for other expenditure, losses, including traveling cost and pains etc. may also be awarded. 10. Now, just to sum up, the appellant appears entitled for a sum of Rs. 4,25,300/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of application till actual payment deducting Rs. 25,000/- already paid as ad interim compensation and the insurer respondent no. 2 is directed to make such payment within six weeks from communication of this order. Accordingly, with the above modification in the award the appeal succeeds. There is no order as to further cost. Rajeev/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)