Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1304 (PNJ)

Gulab Singh v. Shubeg Singh

2013-09-26

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Gulab Singh,the claimant sought compensation in a sum of 5,00,000/-for the injuries he suffered in a road side accident that took place during the night intervening 27th and th of May 2008. His claim petition, brought under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), has been allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra ( for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.02.2010 in a sum of 1,11,000/- Gulab Singh suffered multiple serious and grievous injuries. He was brought out from under the vehicle by the police and was taken to CHC, Naraingarh. He was referred therefrom to PGI, Chandigarh. He was found to have got fractured both bones of his right leg. He also suffered injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body. He has suffered permanent disability. For all these reasons, a sum of 5,00,000/-is claimed as compensation. The claim petition is resisted by the respondents. They have denied the aforesaid averments of the claimant and have denied the claimant to deserve a sum of 5,00,000/-as compensation for his injuries. Learned Tribunal assessed a sum of 64,000/-as loss of future income on account of the permanent disability. A sum of 63,000/-was found to have been spent by the claimant on his treatment but under the IInd Schedule, he was found entitled to 15,000/-only on account of the medical expenses, which was allowed to him. A sum of 20,000/-for pain and suffering, a sum of 4000/-for rich diet, a sum of 4000/-for expenses on attendant and another sum of 4000/-for transportation have also been allowed. Thus, a total sum of 1,11,000/-is assessed as compensation in favour of the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accident took place on 27.05.2008. According to him, it is a case of fracture of both bones of right leg. According to him, the claimant has lost future income and has been allowed only a sum of 64,000/-as compensation. According to him, 20,000/-for pain and suffering, 4000/-each for rich diet, attendant and transportation are also on lower side. He has further submitted that a sum of 63,000/-was spent in his treatment but learned Tribunal has allowed only a sum of 15,000/-for medical expenses. According to him, 20,000/-for pain and suffering, 4000/-each for rich diet, attendant and transportation are also on lower side. He has further submitted that a sum of 63,000/-was spent in his treatment but learned Tribunal has allowed only a sum of 15,000/-for medical expenses. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that under the IInd Schedule there is limit fixed for medical expenses at 15,000/-and learned Tribunal could not allow any sum above 15,000/-under the said Schedule. According to him, compensation has been rightly assessed by learned Tribunal under the other heads and the same could not be enhanced in his case. Though not argued before me, there has been a dispute between the parties regarding the nature of the disability. In the disability certificate Ex.R-1 the word permanent is missing alongside the disability and therefore it was argued before learned Tribunal that it was not a case of permanent disability. The disability in this case is due to shortening of right leg by 2 inches and this disability cannot improve because the length of the leg cannot be increased at the age of the claimant. Hence, learned Tribunal settled the dispute by holding that the disability caused due to the shortening of right leg by 2 inches cannot be anything except permanent. The disability in this case is functional disability. Shortening of leg by two inches is a handicap which will affect not only the future income but also future enjoyment of life. He may require such type of shoes for making up the shortening of the leg. He requires to be compensated for the same. However, I do not find any ground to increase the compensation on medical expenses. Though IInd Schedule is found to be suffering from several defects in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996(2) RRR 718, yet those defects are with regard to multiplier and the calculation of compensation. The limit fixed for medical expenses cannot be bypassed in any manner. Hence, the amount allowed as compensation for medical expenses would remain the same. The limit fixed for medical expenses cannot be bypassed in any manner. Hence, the amount allowed as compensation for medical expenses would remain the same. In these circumstances, I enhance the compensation in the following manner:- Pain and suffering 20,000/- Loss of future income on account of disability 1,00,000/- Loss of future enjoyment of life on account of disability 30,000/- Medical expenses 15,000/- Expenses on attendant 5000/- Expenses on transportation 5000/- Total 1,75,000/- In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from 1,11,000/- to 1,75,000/-which shall be payable to the appellant as per the terms and conditions settled by learned Tribunal regarding interest, etc.