Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3467 (PNJ)

Surinder Kaur v. Ram Parvesh

2016-12-13

DARSHAN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : DARSHAN SINGH, J. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.05.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter called the “Tribunal”), in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act”), whereby the appellant-claimant has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by her in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 30.05.2011. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that learned Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant-claimant to be on the lower side. She further contended that the appellant-claimant has suffered serious injuries in this accident and only Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded on account of pain and sufferings. She further contended that though the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of amenity and enjoyment of life but the same has not been added in the total amount of compensation. She further contended that the claimant has suffered shortening of leg and she will feel difficulty in walking throughout her life. The amount so awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the claimant has been awarded appropriate amount of compensation under all the heads. The claimant was only a house wife. The notional income of the claimant has been rightly determined by the learned Tribunal. Thus, they contended that there is no scope of any enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 7. This fact is not disputed that the appellant-claimant was a house wife. The learned Tribunal has taken the contribution of the claimant to the family in terms of the money to be Rs. 4000/- per month. So, Rs. 4000/- has been determined to be notional income of the claimant for the purpose of computation of the compensation on account of future loss of income due to permanent disability. In view of the detailed discussion by the learned Tribunal, the determination of the notional income of the claimant to be Rs. 4000/- per month. So, Rs. 4000/- has been determined to be notional income of the claimant for the purpose of computation of the compensation on account of future loss of income due to permanent disability. In view of the detailed discussion by the learned Tribunal, the determination of the notional income of the claimant to be Rs. 4000/- per month seems to be justified and reasonable, which does not require any interference. 8. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering. As per the medical evidence, the claimant has suffered serious injuries. As per the discharge summary Ex.P10, the diagnosis of the injuries and surgery underwent by the claimant is as under:- “Closed comminuted segmental fracture shaft of femur (proximal mid third junction and supra condylar region) right side. Closed fracture both bone forearm (radius segmental) mid distal third junction right side. Closed reduction and internal fixation of fracture femur with DFN (SYNTHES) on 31.05.2011. Open reduction and internal fixation of fracture radious and ulna with small LCP (SYNTHES) and application of below elbow slab on 02.06.2011.” 9. The claimant was admitted in the hospital on 30.5.2011 and discharged on 13.06.2011. She also underwent the surgery. So, the compensation on account of pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. 10. The claimant has suffered shortening of right lower limb by one inch. Thus, the claimant will suffer difficulty in walking throughout her life which will adversely affect amenity and enjoyment of life. So, she will be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of enjoyment and amenities of life. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant is worked out as under:- Sr.No. Heads of compensation Amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal (in rupees) Amount of compensation enhanced by this Court (in rupees) 1. Expenditure incurred on medical treatment 11,000 11,000 (no change) 2. Expenditure incurred in special diet 8000 8000 (no change) 3. Expenditure incurred for attendant charges 12,000 12,000 (no change) 4. Compensation on account of pain and sufferings 10,000 20,000 5. Loss of earning capacity 93,600 93,600 (no change) 6. Loss of income 16,000 16,000 (no change) 7. Conveyance allowance 10,000 10,000 (no change) 8. Loss of enjoyment of life and amenities 15,000 (learned Tribunal had awarded this amount but left to mention it in its table) 50,000 Total 1,60,600 2,20,600 11. Loss of earning capacity 93,600 93,600 (no change) 6. Loss of income 16,000 16,000 (no change) 7. Conveyance allowance 10,000 10,000 (no change) 8. Loss of enjoyment of life and amenities 15,000 (learned Tribunal had awarded this amount but left to mention it in its table) 50,000 Total 1,60,600 2,20,600 11. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The total amount of compensation payable to appellants-claimants is enhanced to Rs. 2,20,600/- from Rs. 1,60,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the petition till realisation at the rate as determined by the learned Tribunal. The liability to pay the enhanced amount of compensation shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal in the main award.