1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. FAO-5731-2018
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 Gurdhyan Sing Singh Garib Dass & O & Others Vs. FAO-5731-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 02.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. K.L. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Advocate Navneet Jindal for respondent No.2. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present appeal has been nt een filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhan nhancement of compensation of R he of Rs.9,46,095/- awarded by the Motor Acciden cident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula he (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vid , vide Award dated 04.09.2017 passe 15 assed in MACP Case No.215/2015 dated 30.11.2 .11.2015 filed under Section 166 ct 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter re er referred to as “the Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are he are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of plead leadings and oral & documentary it tary evidence adduced before it concluded tha that the appellant/injured-claima a imant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicul icular accident that took place on nd on 21.01.2015 due to the rash and negligent driv driving of truck bearing registratio ter ation No.HP-64-2452 (hereinafter referred to as o as “the offending vehicle”) by res ing y respondent No.1. The offending SUNENA 2025.05.06 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) vehicle was o as owned by respondent No.2 and Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) .3. and insured by respondent No.3. The above-sai said compensation was granted a er ed along with interest @ 6% per annum. 3. Learned counsel for th nt the appellant/injured-claimant seeks enhanc ancement of compensation by su he y submitting that income of the appellant has has been taken on the lower side a ; ide as Rs.9,800/- per month only; whereas it wa t was the clearly pleaded case of s a of the appellant that he was a driver by profe rofession and was getting a salary t is lary of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted tha that the occupation and income of ed e of the appellant was duly proved from the evid evidence of PW4 Gurnam Singh wh vit h who had submitted his affidavit (Ex.PW4/A) a e ) and had deposed that he ing is owner of tractor bearing is registration N n No.HR-49C-4141; and that the a ith he appellant was employed with him as a drive river and that he was paying a salar to salary of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant. lant. It is submitted that therefore i ght re income of the appellant ought to have been t en taken as ₹10,000/– per month in th instead of ₹9800/– per month. 4. It is further submitted th ed that the appellant has suffered 45% permane anent disability. However, nothin he thing has been granted to the appellant on on account of pain & suffering an he and mental agony. In fact, the learned Tribun ibunal is in error in taking permanen as anent disability of the appellant as only 33% func functional disability; whereas func to functional disability also ought to have been tak taken as 45%. It is accordingly pra rd prayed that the impugned Award d. be modified. 5. Learned counsel for the ce the respondent No.3/Insurance Company opp opposes the prayer made on behalf its ehalf of the appellant and submits that it is a cle a clear finding of the learned Trib nd Tribunal that the occupation and employment o nt or even the salary of the appella rd. ellant were not proved on record. It is further po r pointed out that the appellant ha lity t has failed to prove his disability before the lea
Legal Reasoning
learned Tribunal. Learned counsel sal sel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present sent appeal. 6. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. SUNENA 2025.05.06 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 7. I have heard learned couns Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) d ounsel for the parties and perused the case file in ile in great detail. 8. Perusal of record of the he the case shows that it was the pleaded case o ase of the appellant in the claim pe he petition that on 21.01.2015, the claimant being eing pillion rider on motorcycle bea - bearing registration No. HR-49-C- 0264 which w h was being driven by Randhir Sin rh, Singh, was going from Nalagarh, district Solan lan (HP) to his house at village Naw rict Nawa Nagar, tehsil Kalka, district Panchkula. Th The motorcycle was being driven ect iven by Randhir Singh on correct left side of th f the road. At about 07.00 PM, wh ra , when they reached on Manpura main road on d on Baddi-Nalagarh road, a truck ion truck vehicle bearing registration No.HP-64-245 2452 (for short 'offending veh he vehicle') being driven by the respondent no t no.1-Garib Dass rashly and negli ide egligently, came from Baddi side and hit agains ainst the motorcycle. As a result nd ult of accident, the claimant and aforesaid Rand Randhir Singh fell down on the roa ed road and both of them suffered severe and gr d grievous injuries on their respect he pective persons. After causing the accident, the the respondent no.1 stopped for s he for short time, but thereafter, he along with th h the offending vehicle sped away nt way from the spot. The claimant being injured red was taken to FRU Hospital, N as al, Nalagarh, from where he was referred to PG o PGI, Chandigarh. He also took tre tal, k treatment from Akash Hospital, Nalagarh and and Max City Hospital, Ropar (Pu ity r (Punjab). In PGI and Max City Hospital, Rop Ropar he was operated upon and re and steel rod, screws etc. were inserted in his n his fractured bones of thigh. He h . 8 He had spent an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs on this t his treatment. On the basis of state ess statement made by an eyewitness Gurbachan Sin n Singh, FIR No.11 dated 21.01.201 of .2015 under sections 279, 338 of IPC was regi registered against the responden he dent no.1, being driver of the offending veh vehicle, at police station Baddi. As me i. As per the claimant, at the time of occurrence nce of the accident in question, he w as , he was working as driver and was also doing d g dairy farming and had month of onthly income to the tune of Rs.20,000/- fro from both the avocations. Claiman to imant prayed that he is entitled to compensation tion in the sum of Rs.30 lakhs along long with interest. SUNENA 2025.05.06 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 9. However, at the time of Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) en of argument, it has only been contended by by the appellant that he was em as s employed as a driver and was drawing a sala salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. ad th. In support, the appellant had produced his his Driving Licence (Ex.PX) as per to per which he was authorised to drive motorcy orcycle with gear, light motor vehic ght ehicle i.e. non-transport car, light motor vehicle hicle and tractor. To prove his e he is employment as a driver, the appellant had had produced PW4 Gurnam Sin his Singh, who had submitted his affidavit depo eposing that the appellant was em to s employed with him and used to drive his tractor bearing registration N tr ion n No.HR-49C-4141, registration certificate of of which was placed on record am rd as Ex.P66. However, Gurnam Singh did no not produce any documentary aid ary evidence to prove the said employment o nt of the appellant. Even no docum to cument was brought on record to prove that the t the appellant was drawing a sala . salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. There is also n lso nothing on record to show that ork that appellant was doing the work of dairy farmin rming. Thus, learned Tribunal had nt d taken income of the appellant as Rs.9,800/ 0/- per month on the basis of 14 of Notification dated 05.06.2014 issued by the the Deputy Commissioner, Panchk ial nchkula for the relevant Financial Year 2014-15 15, as per which the driver aut tor authorised to drive light motor vehicles, was as getting monthly salary of Rs.9,8 he s.9,800/-. As such, income of the appellant was was correctly assessed. 10. It has next been contende he nded by the appellant that in the accident in qu n question, he had suffered 45% pe as % permanent disability, which has been wrongly ngly taken as only 33% function ed ctional disability by the learned Tribunal. To p To prove the same, the appellant sal ant had examined Dr. K.K. Bansal PW2, who d o deposed that: “... the claimant of mant was an operated case of compound frac fracture SOF right with fracture ace ht e acetabulum right with Nail right thigh and restr restriction of movements at right h of ht hip and right knee with loss of thigh muscle m cle mess...”. PW2 also proved Disab he isability Certificate (Ex.P63) of the appellant. Ho However, admittedly, PW2 was n he as not the treating doctor of the appellant. Th Thus, in actual fact, the appell his pellant had failed to prove his SUNENA 2025.05.06 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) disability/disa disability certificate as he had failed Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) se iled to examine the doctor whose treatment he he had undergone. However, the le ce e learned Tribunal placed reliance upon judgmen ment of Andhra Pradesh High Cou dy Court in “Sannala Bhaskar Reddy Vs. M. Sreeni eenivasulu & Another” Law Finde ok inder doc ID # 215848 and took disability of th of the appellant to be 33% functio se ctional disability. In the said case also, the disab isability certificate was not proved ot ved as the treating doctor was not examined. Yet . Yet, the Andhra Pradesh High Cour of ourt had assessed the disability of the injured the d therein to be 25%. 11. Accordingly, the learned Tr oss d Tribunal had taken monthly loss of income of t of the appellant to be Rs.3,234/- of - (33% of Rs.9,800/-). As age of the appellant lant was taken to be 19 years as gly s as per the record, accordingly multiplier of of 18 was correctly applied and as and compensation amount was determined to d to be Rs.6,98,544/- (Rs.3,234/- ad - x 12 x 18). The appellant had further produ oduced bills Ex.P1 to Ex.P24, Ex.P2 56 x.P26 to Ex.P30, Ex.P32 to Ex.p56 and Ex.P60, fo , for an amount of Rs.2,25,551/-, w he , which was duly granted to the appellant. The The appellant was further shown t ed wn to have remained hospitalised for 23 days. ys. Learned Tribunal accordingly, a rds ly, awarded Rs.23,000/- towards tion, hospitalisation special diet, transportat ortation; thus, granting tal total compensation tion of Rs.9,46,095/- (Rs.6,98,544/ - 44/- + Rs.2,25,551/- + Rs.23,000/- ). 12. From the above facts, it is it is clear that no case is made out which m merits interference with the im e impugned Award. No doubt Chapter-12 of 2 of the Act is a beneficial legislati islation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supre upreme Court, the same cannot be t be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a s r a source of profit. Hon’ble Suprem reme Court in ‘State of Haryana & Another Vs r Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law F aw Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Co l Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev adev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that t hat the amount of compensation sh n should be just and reasonable, it should neith either be a bonanza nor a source o ce of profit but at the same time it should not not be a pittance. In the presen esent case, am more than just SUNENA 2025.05.06 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) compensation tion has been awarded to the appe ppellant. In the case of “General Manager, KSR KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & O & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon Hon’ble Supreme Court has held held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and and benevolence cannot be the gu e guiding factor for determining the compensa nsation. 13. 14.
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 02.05.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.06 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)