Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1462 (HP)

Prakash v. Vinay Nanda

2015-10-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) By the medium of this appeal, the claimant has questioned the judgment and award dated 10.4.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, in MAC Petition No. 11-S/2 of 2008, titled Sh. Parkash versus Vinay Nanda and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,30,600/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Insurer, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is meager or otherwise. 4. I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded is meager and merits to be enhanced for the following reasons. 5. The claimant was 39 years of age at the time of accident and has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45% which has rendered him physically handicapped and shattered his physical frame and all hops of future. Dr. Pawan Thakur, (PW1) Dr. Ravinder Mokta (PW4), Dr. Sanjay Mahanan and Dr. V.K. Arya have given details what is the effect of the injuries which have been discussed by the Tribunal in paras 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment which is not in dispute. 6. The claimant has pleaded that he has spent Rs.70,000/- on account of his treatment which has been discussed by the Tribunal in para 20 of the impugned award and the Tribunal, after discussing all the issues held the claimant entitled to Rs.14,600/- under the head “medical expenditure”, Rs.24000/- under the head “conveyance charges” and Rs.18000/- under the head “attendant charges” and also awarded Rs.50,000/- under the head “pain and suffering” but has fallen in an error in not awarding the compensation under the head “loss of amenities”, pain and suffering for future” and also has not assessed the loss of income rightly. 7. In the injury cases, the compensation has to be awarded under two heads “pecuniary damages” and “non-pecuniary damages.” 8. 7. In the injury cases, the compensation has to be awarded under two heads “pecuniary damages” and “non-pecuniary damages.” 8. The Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , had discussed all aspects and laid down guidelines how a guess work is to be made and how compensation is to be awarded under various heads. 9. The said judgment was also discussed by the Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085. 10. This Court in FAO No. 317 of 2011 titled Oriental Insurance Company versus Padama Devi and others, decided on 18.9.2015, FAO No. 18 of 2009 titled Managing Director HPMC Nigam Vihar vs. Naresh Kumar and others decided on 14.8.2015 and FAO No. 72 of 2008 titled Anil Kumar versus Sh. Nittin Kumar and others decided on 10.7.2015 has also laid down the same principles. 11. Having said so, I am of the considered view that by a guess work, the claimant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head “loss of amenities of life” Rs.50,000/- under the head “pain and suffering for future”. 12. The Tribunal has discussed in para 23 of the impugned award that the claimant was earning Rs.4000/- per month and it has affected his earning capacity to the extent of Rs.1800/-. It has to be Rs.2000/- per month. 13. In the given circumstances I deem it proper to award Rs.50,000/- under the head “loss of future income”, in addition to the compensation already awarded. 14. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.4,30,600/-+Rs.1,50,000/-, i.e., total to the tune of Rs.5,80,600/- with interest, as awarded, from the date of the claim petition on the amount of Rs.4,30,600/- and on Rs.1,50,000/-, from the date of impugned award. 15. Having said so, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced, as indicated hereinabove. 16. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount minus the amount already deposited, in the Registry within six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 17. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.