Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1305 (HP)

Dinesh kumar v. Yashpal

2014-09-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, (Oral). The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 9.6.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Solan, H.P, for short “The Tribunal” in MAC Petition No. 27-NL/2 of 2003 titled Dinesh Kumar vs. Yashpal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,03,500/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against respondents No. 1 and 3, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The owner/insured, driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper not to discuss and return findings on issues No. 1 and 3, are upheld. 4. Issue No.2. Admittedly, the claimant became victim of a vehicular accident which was caused by driver, namely, Kumari Alka Chaudhary respondent No. 2 herein while driving maruti car bearing registration No. PUC-0007 rashly and negligently at Mohali Bazar, hit the motorcycle NO. PB-07-H-5921, on which the claimant was travelling as pillion rider. The claimant sustained injuries, was shifted to hospital where he remained admitted from 11.3.2003 to 15.3.2003. 5. The claimant has examined Dr. P.D. Sharma, Medical Superintendent and Chairman Handicapped Board, DH Solan who proved the disability certificate Ext. PW4/A, issued by the Medical Board. He stated that as per disability certificate Ext. PW4/A the petitioner has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 30% qua his right lower limb. In cross-examination he stated that this 30% disability is qua particular portion of the body and not in relation to the entire body. Therefore, from the statement of this witness, coupled with the permanent disability certificate Ext.PW4/A, the claimant has proved that he sustained 30% permanent disability qua his lower right limb in the said accident. 6. While going through the statement made by the doctor, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claimant has suffered 30% disability which has affected his earning capacity. The Tribunal has granted compensation under the head “loss of past and future income and general damages” as Rs.50,000/- which is too meager. 6. While going through the statement made by the doctor, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claimant has suffered 30% disability which has affected his earning capacity. The Tribunal has granted compensation under the head “loss of past and future income and general damages” as Rs.50,000/- which is too meager. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.20,000/- each under the heads “ Pain and sufferings” and “loss of amenities of life” which is adequate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the impugned award so far as it relates to pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life. 7. Thus, the only question is whether the amount awarded under the head “loss of past and future income and general damages” is adequate. I am of the considered view that it is too meager for the following reasons. 8. The claimant was undergoing training as dental technician, has become a dental technician, who has been rendered disabled, lost future prospects of earning and virtually, his life has become miserable, has to undergo pain and suffering throughout his life, his physical frame is shattered and his matrimonial life also stands affected. 9. By making guesswork, it can be held that he was earning Rs.4000/- per month and lost 30% of his earning capacity, thus has lost earning capacity to the tune of Rs.1000/- per month, at least. 10. Admittedly, the claimant was 23 years of age at the time of the accident. The multiplier of “15” was applicable as per the Schedule appended to the Act read with the judgment of the apex Court delivered in Sarla Verma versus Delhi Road Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , upheld in Reshma Kumari & ors vs. Madan Mohan & anr. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 11. Viewed thus, it is hereby held that the claimant is entitled to compensation under the head “loss of income” to the tune of Rs.1000x12 = 12000x15 = Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum, from today. 12. The amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head “loss of past and future income and general damages”. The said amount was to be awarded only under the head “general damages” and is accordingly awarded under the said head. 13. 12. The amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head “loss of past and future income and general damages”. The said amount was to be awarded only under the head “general damages” and is accordingly awarded under the said head. 13. The insurer-respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum, within six weeks from today and on deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the claimant through payees’ account cheque. 14. Having said so, the compensation is enhanced and impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 15. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Send down the record, forthwith.