Harinder Paul Singh v. Mohan Singh & Ors.

Present: Ms. Aneet, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The claimant is in appeal against the award dated 12.10.1993, whereby Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for short, `the Tribunal') awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. Briefly, the facts are that on 11.7.1991, the claimant was going on his Maruti van from Jalandhar to Chandigarh. When he reached near Balongi barrier, a bus bearing No. PB-12-A/8404 of Punjab Roadways, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, came from the opposite side and hit the van of the claimant. As a result of the accident, the claimant received injuries. In the claim petition, he was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation vide impugned award. It is against this award, the claimant is in appeal before this court seeking further enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that negligence of the vehicle involved in the accident, on account of which the appellant suffered injuries, is not in dispute, as no appeal has been filed by the State impugning that finding. In the present case, the appellant remained admitted in the hospital on two different occasions for a period of about two months. Surgeries were performed. He suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20%. There was shortening of FAO No. 858 of 1994 [2] leg to the extent of one inch. On account of the injuries suffered, he remained bed ridden for more than six months. He had to engage an employee for looking after his business and further had to engage a vehicle to take him to his place of business and also for follow up treatment in the hospital. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not just and fair considering the fact that the appellant will have to live with this agony throughout his life. He will not be able to enjoy his life as a normal man. His business, which was at the threshold, suffered on account of the accident, as he will not be able to travel frequently which is the requirement of his business, as a result of which, he will not be able to expand it to the extent he could, in case the accident had not occurred. Relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud and others, 2008 ACJ 9, it was submitted that considering the income of the appellant and the permanent disability by applying a suitable multiplier, his future loss of income needs to be assessed. He further submitted that compensation awarded on account of medical expenses is also not fair. Further nothing has been granted on account of special diet, attendant and transportation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellant in the present case suffered a fracture in his bone, which was taken care of by implanting a plate and thereafter the appellant is all right. As the permanent disability is only qua that part of the body with shortening of leg by one inch, it cannot be claimed that the disability is 20%. Whatever material was produced by the appellant before the Tribunal, which was worth reliance, the same was considered by the Tribunal and appropriate amount of compensation has been assessed which does not call for any interference. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation payable to the appellant awarded different amounts under different heads, the details of which is as under: (i) (ii) Injuries and permanent disability: Pain and suffering: (iii) Medical treatment: (iv) Loss of business: (v) Transportation charges: (vi) Future enjoyment of life: Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 10,000/- The dispute, which is sought to be raised by the appellant in the present case is regarding future loss of income, salary paid to the manager FAO No. 858 of 1994 [3] employed after the accident, special diet, attendant and transportation. The accident in the present case had occurred on 11.7.1991. As per the documents placed on record by the appellant himself as Annexures `A' and `B' along with C.M. No. 15454-CII of 2000, it is shown that for the year ending March, 1992, the sale of the firm owned by the appellant was Rs. 3,44,041.30 and he earned a net profit of Rs. 34,502.48. The sale for the year 1992-93 was Rs. 3,48,464.90 and the net profit earned was Rs. 57,719.24. The appellant having suffered accident in the year 1992-93 being on 11.7.1991, a perusal of the profit and loss account for the year does not show that any amount has been paid by the appellant to any person as salary, which the appellant claimed that he had engaged while he was on bed and could not attend the business. In the absence thereof, no amount can possibly be granted for the purpose. As far as compensation on account of special diet, attendant and transportation charges during the period the appellant remained in the hospital is concerned, the appellant certainly deserves to be granted compensation on account thereof. In my opinion, Rs. 25,000/- in lump sum would be the reasonable amount therefor. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for 20% disability suffered by the appellant. Normally Rs. 2,000/- is awarded for one per cent disability. By applying that ratio, in my opinion, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- more on account of permanent disability. As far as future loss of income is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- on that account. No material was produced on record or referred to at the time of hearing to show that the kind of business being carried out by the appellant required extensive travelling. Even otherwise, the financial statements for the year 1991-92, the year in which the accident took place and the subsequent year 1992-93 show that almost with the same amount of turnover, the profit of the appellant had increased from Rs. 34,502.48 to Rs. 57,719.24. Meaning thereby it cannot be said that on account of the accident, there was any future loss of income. Still considering the fact that primarily there may be certain loss during the year the accident took place, the learned Tribunal was quite generous in awarding Rs. 20,000/- on account thereof, which does not call for any interference. The judgment of Sunil Kumar's case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the injured was a driver and suffered 45% permanent disability on account of which he could not drive the vehicle. It was under those circumstances that the amount of compensation payable to the claimant therein was assessed. The facts in the present case are different. FAO No. 858 of 1994 [4] For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the award of the Tribunal to the extent that additional sum of Rs. 35,000/- is granted as compensation, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its payment.

20.4.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge