Rajesh Kumar v. Madan Lal And O And Ors

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been filed The n filed by the claimant-appellant seeking enhance hancement of the compensation awa n awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims laims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter inafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide vide award dated 09.01.2001, wher , whereby a sum of ₹3,50,000/- along with intere interest @ 12% per annum from the om the date of filing of the claim petition till realiz l realization was awarded on account count of injuries sustained by the appellant in a m in a motor vehicular accident dated dated 01.08.1999. The accident occurred due to t ue to the rash and negligent driving of ing of bus bearing registration No. HR-39-0942 by r 2 by respondent No.1.

2. Briefly stated, the facts as emerge fr Brie erge from the impugned award are that the appellan pellant-claimant Rajesh Kumar filed a filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor V tor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking co ng compensation on account of injuries sustained stained by him in a motor vehicular a ular accident dated 01.08.1999 at SHUBHAM 2026.04.09 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order about 1:40 PM. I PM. It was pleaded that while he was he was travelling as a pillion rider on Scooter No. H No. HR-34/6866, being driven on th on the correct side of the road, a Haryana Roadw oadways Bus bearing No. HR-39/0 39/0942, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash a rash and negligent manner, came on me on the wrong side and struck against the scoo e scooter, resulting in multiple griev

grievous injuries. FIR No. 158 dated 02.08.1999

8.1999 under Sections 279/337/338 IP /338 IPC was registered at Police Station Khol. At At the time of the accident, the a , the appellant was aged about 30 years, was marrie married and had two dependent childr children, was stated to be running a service station station and also engaged in agricultu ricultural and allied activities. In support of his av his avocation and income, he steppe stepped into the witness box and deposed that he w at he was earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month, which formed the basis of his claim s claim before the learned Tribunal. unal. It further emerges from the evidence on reco record that the appellant was initiall initially taken to PHC Kanina and thereafter shifted shifted to Pushpanjali Hospital, Gu l, Gurgaon, where he remained admitted from 0 rom 01.08.1999 to 31.08.1999 and u and underwent multiple surgical procedures. The . The medical evidence, including uding testimony of doctors and disability certific ertificate issued by the competent me ent medical board, shows that the appellant suffere suffered preganglionic brachial plexu plexus injury (right) along with fractures of right f right upper limb and femur, and wa nd was assessed to have suffered 60% permanent d nent disability in relation to the right e right upper limb (and not to the whole body), re dy), resulting in monoplegia, musc muscle wasting and functional impairment of th t of the limb. Insofar as the medical e dical expenses are concerned, the appellant has sub as substantiated his claim by placing ing on record medical bills and documents exhib exhibited as Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-4 and E and Ex.P-15 to Ex.P-116, besides additional bills p bills produced in evidence as Ex.P Ex.P-148 to Ex.P-153. The said SHUBHAM 2026.04.09 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order unrebutted docu documentary evidence clearly esta y establishes that the appellant incurred medica edical expenditure of approximatel imately ₹2,00,000/- towards his treatment. The ev The evidence further indicates that he that he remained under prolonged treatment, underw underwent repeated follow-up visits t visits to the hospital and incurred additional expen expenses towards transportation and a and attendant care. On the basis of the pleadings dings of the parties, the learned Tribu Tribunal framed three issues and, upon appreciation ciation of the oral as well as documen cumentary evidence led on record, decided Issue No No.1 in favour of the claimant ant and partly allowed the claim petition, awardin warding a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to t to the appellant Rajesh Kumar along with intere interest @ 12% per annum from the om the date of filing of the claim petition till realiz l realization, fastening the liability joi lity jointly and severally upon the respondents. Agg Aggrieved against the aforesaid aw said award passed by the learned Tribunal, the pre the present appeal has been preferre referred by the appellant seeking enhancement of t nt of the compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the claimant Lear imant-appellant contends that the learned Tribunal ibunal erred both on facts and in l d in law in awarding a meagre compensation o ion of ₹3,50,000/-, which is wholly is wh inadequate and not commensurate w rate with the nature of injuries and pe and permanent disability suffered by the appellant. ellant. It is argued that the appellant s ellant sustains grievous injuries in the accident caus t caused due to the rash and negligent ligent driving of respondent No.1. He remains adm s admitted in the hospital from 01.0 m 01.08.1999 to 31.08.1999 and underwent surgic surgical procedures, including insertio insertion of rods in his right upper limb and right fe ight femur, as well as fixation with n with nails. It is further submitted that the appellan pellant’s right hand becomes benumb enumbed and suffers paralysis on account of seve f severe injuries. The appellant con nt continues to visit Pushpanjali SHUBHAM 2026.04.09 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order Hospital from hi om his native village, Kanina, for foll for follow-up treatment and incurs medical expenses penses of approximately ₹3,00,000/- -, besides an additional sum of ₹50,000/- spent o spent on further treatment. His evidenc vidence in this regard stands duly recorded before before the learned Tribunal. It is f It is further contended that the appellant suffers ers permanent disability to the e the extent of 60%, resulting in monoplegia of t a of the right upper limb, accompan ompanied by pain and restricted movement in the in the right knee, muscle wasting o ting of the right upper limb, and scarring over the er the right arm, forearm and thigh. L igh. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribu Tribunal fails to properly appreciate reciate the medical evidence, the expenses incurre incurred on treatment, and the fut e future medical needs of the appellant. It is als It is also argued that the appellant, age nt, aged about 30 years, is engaged in multiple avoca avocations, including running a servi a service station, hatchery, poultry farm and agricul gricultural work, earning about ₹6,00 ₹6,000/- per month, and that the loss of future e ture earning capacity is not adequ adequately assessed. It is thus contended that t that the compensation awarded unde d under various heads, including pain and sufferi suffering and loss of amenities, is g s, is grossly inadequate, and the impugned award award deserves to be modified by e by enhancing the compensation along with intere interest and costs.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for Per l for respondent No.4–Insurance Company conten contends that the impugned award ward does not suffer from any illegality or perv r perversity and has been passed after d after due appreciation of oral as well as documen cumentary evidence. It is argued that ed that the appellant has failed to substantiate the c e the claim for enhancement by leadin leading reliable evidence and that the learned Tribu Tribunal has already granted just an just and reasonable compensation. Learned counsel ounsel further submits that the rate e rate of interest awarded is in SHUBHAM 2026.04.09 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order consonance with e with settled law and does not warran warrant any upward revision. It is maintained that that the findings recorded by the y the learned Tribunal are well- reasoned and do nd do not call for any interference by ce by this Court. Consequently, it is prayed that the hat the appeal, being devoid of merit, d erit, deserves dismissal.

5. After hearing learned counsel for t Afte l for the parties and perusing the record, the ques question that arises for consideratio ideration in the present appeal is whether the com e compensation awarded by the le the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, or wh , or whether the same warrants enhanc enhancement in light of the nature of injuries, exten , extent of permanent disability and ty and its impact on the earning capacity of the cl the claimant-appellant.

6. This Court has considered the rival s This rival submissions and perused the record. the disab disability certificate (Ex.P-15), duly , duly proved on record by PW-6 Dr. B.B. Nagpal agpal, Registrar, Department of Orth f Orthopaedics, PGIMS, Rohtak, who was a mem member of the duly constituted Med d Medical Board, establishes that the appellant wa was examined by the Board and w and was found to have sustained multiple grievou rievous injuries, including fractures tures of both bones of the right forearm, fracture acture of right humerus and fracture o ture of shaft of right femur, along with preganglion anglionic brachial plexus injury (rig y (right). The medical evidence further reveals veals that on account of the said said injuries, the appellant has developed mono monoplegia of the right upper limb r limb, accompanied by muscle wasting, persiste ersistent pain, scarring over the right a right arm, forearm and thigh, and significant restric restriction of movements. The Medi Medical Board has assessed the permanent disabi disability of the claimant to the exte e extent of 60% in relation to the right upper limb, r limb, and it has been specifically opin ly opined that the said disability is permanent in na in nature and not likely to improve mprove in future, as the electro- SHUBHAM 2026.04.09 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order diagnostic studie studies indicated no possibility of reco f recovery in the brachial plexus. However, it is e it is evident that the said assessmen ssment pertains only to the right upper limb and n and not to the whole body. In view view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme upreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, the percentage of tage of permanent disability cannot be not be mechanically equated with the percentage of tage of loss of earning capacity and th and the Court is required to assess the functional d nal disability having regard to the o the nature of avocation of the claimant. In the p n the present case, the claimant was e was engaged in running a service station and in a in agricultural and allied activities ivities, which necessarily require substantial physi physical labour and effective use of use of both upper limbs. Having regard to the n the nature of injuries, the resultan esultant paralysis and functional impairment of th t of the right upper limb, and its impa s impact on the appellant’s ability to carry on his n his avocation, this Court assesse assesses the functional disability affecting the earn he earning capacity of the claimant at ant at 60%. Insofar as the income of the appellant i ellant is concerned, it has come on rec on record that he was engaged in running a servic service station and was also involve nvolved in agricultural and allied activities. In su In support thereof, PW-10 Jainarai inarain, an independent witness running a busine usiness of assembling electric monob monoblock motors adjacent to the service station o tion of the appellant, has categoric tegorically deposed that he was running the said e said service station and was earning earning approximately Rs. 5,000/- per month prior prior to the accident. The said testimo timony lends due corroboration to the case of th of the claimant-appellant regarding rding his avocation and source of income. Though hough no documentary evidence in t ce in the form of account books, income tax retur returns or salary slips has been pro en produced, the same cannot be held against the a st the appellant, particularly in the cas he case of a self-employed person SHUBHAM 2026.04.09 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order engaged in sma n small-scale business activities, wh s, where maintenance of formal accounts is not a s not always expected. However, kee er, keeping in view the nature of evidence availab vailable on record, this Court assesses ssesses the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 5 t Rs. 5,000/- per month.

7. Insofar as the computation of comp Inso f compensation is concerned, this Court is guided b ided by the principles laid down by th by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. a v. Delhi Transport Corporation ation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insura surance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 40% to 0% towards future prospects is warranted in the in the case of a self-employed person person below the age of 40 years. Accordingly, the ly, the monthly income of the appellan pellant, assessed at Rs. 5,000/-, is enhanced by 40% by 40% and comes to Rs. 7,000/- per per month, i.e. Rs. 84,000/- per annum. Further, rther, in terms of Sarla Verma (supra (supra), the appropriate multiplier applicable to a p to a person aged about 30 years is 1 s is 17. Considering the functional disability affectin ffecting the earning capacity of the c f the claimant at 60%, the loss of future earning is ing is assessed at Rs. 50,400/- per ann er annum (Rs. 84,000 × 60%), and by applying the m g the multiplier of 17, the total loss of oss of future earning comes to Rs. 8,56,800/-.

8. The Tribunal has computed the med The e medical expenses at ₹2,00,000/- on the basis of is of documentary evidence placed laced on record, including Ex.P3 (₹97,000/-), Ex.P ), Ex.P4 (₹6,600/-) and other medical edical bills i.e. Ex.P15 to Ex.P16 and Ex.P148 to E 48 to Ex.P153. The said assessment is ent is borne out from the record. Notably, no ad no additional evidence has been p een produced either before the Tribunal or in th r in the present appeal to warrant an rant any modification of the said amount. Accord ccordingly, the medical expenses a nses as assessed by the learned SHUBHAM 2026.04.09 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order Tribunal are take re taken as such. The appellant is furth is further entitled to compensation under the non- -pecuniary and incidental heads. heads. The medical evidence on record clearly es arly establishes that the claimant has nt has suffered grievous injuries resulting in perm n permanent disability of the right u ight upper limb, accompanied by monoplegia, mus a, muscle wasting, restriction of mov f movements and persistent pain. Such injuries wo ies would have caused considerable p able physical pain, mental trauma and prolonged su ged suffering during the period of trea of treatment as well as thereafter. Accordingly, a su ly, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded arded towards pain and suffering. Further, on acco account of the permanent disability ability and functional impairment, the claimant has nt has been deprived of leading a no g a normal and active life and is unable to enjoy t joy the ordinary amenities of life as life as he did prior to the accident. The loss of funct f functional utility of the right upper lim pper limb has a continuing adverse impact on his da his day-to-day activities and overall verall quality of life. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 25,00 . 25,000/- is awarded towards loss of oss of amenities. The evidence on record also indic indicates that the claimant remained ained under prolonged treatment and would have have required assistance of an atte n attendant during the period of hospitalization an tion and recovery. Considering the na the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, a su nt, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to rded towards attendant charges. In addition, the cla he claimant would have incurred exp ed expenses towards special diet, transportation an ion and frequent visits to the hospit hospital for follow-up treatment. Though exact d xact documentary proof may not b not be available for each such expense, the sam e same are inevitable in cases of this of this nature. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- - is awarded towards special die ial diet and conveyance. Further, having regard t gard to the nature of injuries, per s, permanent disability and the likelihood of c of continued medical care, phy , physiotherapy and follow-up SHUBHAM 2026.04.09 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order treatment, a sum a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is awarde warded towards future medical expenses. Accord Accordingly, the just compensation pa tion payable to the claimant is re- assessed as under under: Sr. No. Head of Compensation Amount (₹) 1. Loss of future earning capacity 8,56,800/-.

2. Medical expenses 3. Pain and suffering 4. Loss of amenities 5. Attendant charges 6. 7. Special diet & conveyance Future medical expenses 2,00,000 1,00,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 75,000 Total ₹13,06,800

9. Consequently, in view of the abo Con e above discussion, the present appeal is allowe allowed. The impugned award dated dated 09.01.2001 passed by the learned Motor A otor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narna Narnaul, is modified to the extent that the compens mpensation payable to the claimant is ant is enhanced from ₹3,50,000/- . to ₹13,06,800/-

10. The enhanced amount of compensat The pensation, i.e., over and above the amount awarded arded by the learned Tribunal, shall shall carry interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum annum from the date of filing of ng of the claim petition till its realization.

11. All pending miscellaneous applicat All lications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to er as to costs.

02.04.2026 Shubham (AMARIN ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No SHUBHAM 2026.04.09 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order