Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1927 (HP)

Manohar Singh v. Pawan Kumar

2015-12-18

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award, dated dated 31.10.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 93/01, 59/2005, titled as Manohar Singh versus Pawan Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,71,200/with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the insurers of both the vehicles involved in the accident were saddled with liability in equal shares (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The respondents in the claim petition, i.e. the owners-insured, the drivers and the insurers of both the offending vehicles have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. I deem it proper to record herein that the matter was listed before the Lok Adalat and both the insurance companies have made u-turn and that is why this appeal is on the dockets of this Court for the last more than six years, speaks how the insurance companies are dealing with the cases. 5. The moot question involved in this appeal is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal in terms of the impugned award is adequate or otherwise? 6. I have perused the record and the impugned judgment and am of the considered view that the awarded amount, on the face of it, is inadequate, rather meager, for the following reasons: 7. Manohar Singh, the appellant-claimant-injured became the victim of the accident, which was outcome of the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the offending vehicles and suffered 88% permanent disability, which stands proved by PW4, Dr. S.R. Thakur and by other documents, i.e. discharge slips, Ext. PW1/ C, PW1/ D and the disability certificate, Ext. PW4/ A. The said finding has not been challenged, thus, has attained finality. 8. A person, who has suffered 88% permanent disability, virtually has gone through pain and sufferings and has to suffer throughout the life. Not only he has to suffer pain and sufferings, but the injury has shattered the physical frame of the appellant-claimant-injured and is not in a position to earn anything. 8. A person, who has suffered 88% permanent disability, virtually has gone through pain and sufferings and has to suffer throughout the life. Not only he has to suffer pain and sufferings, but the injury has shattered the physical frame of the appellant-claimant-injured and is not in a position to earn anything. The amount awarded under all the heads is meager, is an eye-opener. 9. It is beaten law of land that while assessing compensation in injury cases, guess work is to be made. 10. My this view is fortified by the judgments made by the Apex Court in the cases titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787, and Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771. 11. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases. 12. It has been averred in the claim petition that the appellant-claimant-injured was 17 years of age and the student of 10+2 at the relevant point of time, which is not in dispute. He was having a bright career ahead and due to the injury Sustained by him, will not be able to earn anything in future. He has lost the total earning capacity and the minimum loss, which can be said to be suffered by him, in view of the latest judgments rendered by the Apex Court, is Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 5,000/- per month. But, keeping in view the facts of the present case, it can be safely said and held that the claimant-injured has suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 13. 4,000/- Rs. 5,000/- per month. But, keeping in view the facts of the present case, it can be safely said and held that the claimant-injured has suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 13. In view of the age of claimant-injured, multiplier of 14' is to be applied while keeping in view the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 14. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant-injured has suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs. 3,000/x 12 x 14 = Rs. 5,04,000/. 15. The claimantinjured has remained admitted at Zonal Hospital Mandi w.e.f. 19.08.2001 to 23.08.2001 and at IGMC w.e.f. 24.08.2001 to 23.09.2001 and as per the doctor, he has also to undergo treatment throughout his life. Thus, the claimantinjured is at least entitled to Rs. 50,000/under the head 'medical expenses incurred', Rs. 50,000/under the head 'future medical expenses', Rs. 20,000/under the head 'attendant charges', Rs. 50,000/under the head 'pain and sufferings undergone'. He is also entitled to Rs. 50,000/under the head 'loss of amenities of life' for the reason that he will not be in a position to get a proper match, rather, will not be able to have marital life. Thus, the injury has made his life miserable. 16. Having said so, the claimantinjured is held entitled to Rs. 5,04,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 50,000/ - + Rs. 50,000/= Rs. 7,24,000/with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award. 17. The factum of insurance of both the offending vehicles is not in dispute. Thus, insurers of both the offending vehicles are saddled with liability in equal shares and are directed to deposit the same before the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. 18. On deposition of the amount, the same be released in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 19. Thus, insurers of both the offending vehicles are saddled with liability in equal shares and are directed to deposit the same before the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. 18. On deposition of the amount, the same be released in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 19. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 20. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.