Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2213 (HP)

Yogesh Sharma v. Jyoti

2016-10-17

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the =petitioner') for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, dated 30.8.2011 in Claim Petition No.67-S/2 of 2009. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 7.3.2009 at place Piplughat Tehsil Arki, District Solan, the petitioner met with an accident and suffered injuries in the car bearing No. HP-11-3555, being driven by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.3. As per the petitioner, he was travelling in the said car, which was being driven by respondent No.2, in a rash and negligent manner. Thereafter, he suffered injuries and was taken to Arki hospital from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla, for treatment. The petitioner suffered multiple injuries and remained admitted in the hospital and thereafter got treatment after discharge from hospital. As per the petitioner, he was 23 years of age and working as a tailor, at the time of accident and suffered permanent disability in the accident. 3. As far as the accident is concerned, the same is admitted by respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply. Rest of the averments regarding rash and negligent driving were denied. As per respondents No.1 and 2, the accident has taken place, as a result of rash and negligent driving of unknown truck. FIR has been registered in Police Station, Arki, District Solan, H.P. 4. The learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 30.10.2011 : ?1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in an accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2 while driving the vehicle owned by respondent No.1 ? OPP. 2. If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom ? OPP. 3. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation? OPR-3. 4. Relief.? 5. After deciding Issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner and Issues No.2 and 3 against the respondents, the learned Tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs. 1,14,800/- to the petitioner. 6. OPR-3. 4. Relief.? 5. After deciding Issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner and Issues No.2 and 3 against the respondents, the learned Tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs. 1,14,800/- to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below is in on very lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has argued that the vehicle was insured and there is no liability of respondent No.1. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has argued that the amount of compensation is just and reasoned, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal. He has further argued that the award of compensation has been given on each and every point. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was working as a tailor at the relevant time and suffered 10 % permanent disability, so the income of the tailor is required to be taken much more than Rs. 3,000/- which has been wrongly taken by the learned Tribunal below. 9. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the record of the case carefully. 10. As far as permanent disability is concerned, PW-1 Dr. Ashish Sharma, from Orthopedic medicines was examined to prove it. As per him, the petitioner has suffered 10% permanent disability. PW-3 Umesh Kumar has deposed that the petitioner has suffered injuries in an accident with the offending vehicle, as the offending vehicle had rolled down from the road at a time driver of the offending vehicle failed to give pass to the truck coming from the opposite direction. The petitioner suffered 10% permanent disability getting treatment as indoor or outdoor patient in IGMC, Shimla and has also suffered loss of income. PW-4 Hari Dass, deposed that the petitioner suffered injuries in an accident with the offending vehicle. PW-5 Sapna deposed that her husband suffered injuries in an accident with the offending vehicle and thereby remained under treatment as indoor as well as outdoor patient and confined to bed and suffered 10% permanent disability. She has further deposed that the petitioner remained dependent upon her and thereby suffered loss of income in addition to the costs of treatment. PW-5 Sapna deposed that her husband suffered injuries in an accident with the offending vehicle and thereby remained under treatment as indoor as well as outdoor patient and confined to bed and suffered 10% permanent disability. She has further deposed that the petitioner remained dependent upon her and thereby suffered loss of income in addition to the costs of treatment. It has not come on record that the petitioner was working as a tailor. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove the fact that he was working as a tailor at the relevant time or that he is a tailor by profession and so, this Court finds no illegality in the assessment of income of the petitioner, which is taken as Rs. 3,000/-, for the purpose of calculating disability. The multiplier is also applied correctly i.e. 18, after taking into consideration the age of petitioner in between 23 to 26 years. At the same point of time, the medical expenses awarded Rs. 25,000/-, as cost of treatment is also just and reasoned, but after going through the record, this Court finds that no compensation has been awarded to the petitioner for the loss of future amenities due to permanent disability the petitioner has suffered. So, this Court finds that the petitioner is held entitled to Rs. 25,000/- for the loss of future amenities. The compensation award passed by the learned Tribunal below is required to be enhanced by Rs. 25,000/-, on account of the loss of future amenities. No other points argued so, needs no consideration. 11. The net result of the above discussion is that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below is enhanced by Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled Rs. 1,14,800/- plus Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.