Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1599 (PNJ)

Jagdish alias Jaggi v. Ramesh Kumar

2014-11-21

ANITA CHAUDHRY

body2014
JUDGMENT Ms. Anita Chaudhry, J.: - This appeal is preferred by the injured-claimant who is aggrieved by the award dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa who was awarded a sum of Rs.8,99,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 2. The grievance of the claimant is that the amount awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenity, loss of marital prospects, future medical expenses and loss of income during the treatment period was less. 3. It would be necessary to refer to brief facts. Jagdish @ Jaggi met with an accident which resulted in grievous injuries on both the legs. The right leg was almost crushed and had 14 fractures. The petitioner had undergone painful period. The treatment was long and skin grafting was done but the wounds did not heal and the petitioner remained on bed for long and ultimately the leg below knee had to be amputated. The petitioner was 25 years old when the accident occurred. His claim is that he was a Barber and was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month and on account of his disablement, he would be unable to work and enjoy the amenities of life and his marital prospects had ended. 4. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation:- Medical Expenses - Rs.1,24,925.50/- Pain & Suffering - Rs.30,000/- Loss of Income - Rs.12,000/- Medical Expenses (for whole life) - Rs.70,000/- Loss of Amenities, Enjoyment - Rs.2,00,000/- of life & loss of Marital Prospects Conveyance Charges - Rs.30,000/- Loss of Future Earnings - Rs.4,32,000/- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total - Rs.8,98,925.50/- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. The Tribunal found that the petitioner had been unable to adduce evidence to show that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and considering his case to be that of a labourer, the monthly income was assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month. Considering that the loss of earning on account of amputation would be 50% it applied the multiplier of 18 and the amount of loss towards disability was assessed at Rs.4,32,000/-. 6. The counsel for the appellant had referred to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in V. Mekala Vs. Considering that the loss of earning on account of amputation would be 50% it applied the multiplier of 18 and the amount of loss towards disability was assessed at Rs.4,32,000/-. 6. The counsel for the appellant had referred to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another 2014(2) RCR(Civil) 880 and urged that in the appellant’s case, there was an amputation below the knee of the right leg and there were fractures of both the legs and the disability assessed was 80% but the Tribunal had assessed the functional disability to be 50% but the amount awarded for pain and sufferings was only Rs.30,000/-. It was urged that the claimant remained on bed for a number of months and the loss of income had been given only for three months. It was urged that the record would show that there are bills which relate to the year 2011 and the medical expenses would have to be incurred even in the future and only a paltry sum of Rs.70,000/- has been awarded. It was contended that on account of accident, the appellant became a handicap and his marriage prospects had come to an end and no-one would marry him. It was urged that the pain and agony suffered by the appellant cannot be assessed by way of compensation nor can be restored but the claimant should be adequately compensated for his expected years of survival. It was urged that no amount had been granted towards attendant charges and the claimant could not have moved without the assistance of an attendant. 7. The argument on the other hand was that the Tribunal had granted compensation keeping all the aspects into view and the claimant had failed to show that his income was Rs.6,000/- per month and taking the income to be that of a labourer, a fair assessment has been made. It was urged that hospitalization was not over 15 days and the Tribunal had granted loss of income of three months. 8. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident, the appellant became handicapped as the right leg below the knee had to be amputated on account of injuries sustained by him. In such case, it is difficult to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the person and for having become life long handicap. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident, the appellant became handicapped as the right leg below the knee had to be amputated on account of injuries sustained by him. In such case, it is difficult to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the person and for having become life long handicap. No money can compensate because it is impossible to equate the money with human sufferings. 9. The counsel for the appellant had submitted that the claimant has been deprived of the enjoyment of life as well as marital prospects. The appellant was just 25 years old when he met with this unfortunate accident. The appellant will have to use crutches through out his life. I find that the amount awarded towards pain and sufferings is in-adequate. The loss of income had been calculated for three months whereas in the case of amputation the recovery would have been slow and would have taken at least six months. The claimant was awarded Rs.70,000/- for future medical expenses and an increase is required under this head as well. No amount was awarded for attendant charges. Therefore, the following additional amounts should be added:- Pain and sufferings - Rs.1,70,000/- Loss of Income - Rs.12,000/- Future treatment - Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of Marriage Prospects - Rs.1,00,000/- Attendant charges - Rs.25,000/- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Increase - Rs.4,07,000/- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Thus the claimant’s appeal is partly allowed and an additional amount of Rs.4,07,000/- is allowed to the claimant with interest @ 6% from the date of institution of the claim petition till realization. The Insurance Company would deposit entire amount in a nationalized bank of the choice of the appellant for a period of three years and if during the said period, the appellant wants to withdraw a portion for his personal expenses then he would be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for release of the deposited amount which may be considered by it and pass an appropriate order. The appellant would also be entitled to quarterly interest. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————