Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 597 (PNJ)

Manhar Lal v. Sita Ram

2016-02-12

DARSHAN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : DARSHAN SINGH, J. 1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of both the appeals mentioned above which have arisen out of the same award dated 5.10.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter called the Tribunal), vide which appellant Manohar Lal (mentioned as Manhar Lal in the memo of parties) in FAO No. 2227 of 2008 has been awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 95,000/- and appellant Sat Pal in FAO No. 3724 of 2008 has been awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,76,270/- as a result of petitions filed by them under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act) and on account of the injuries suffered by them in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 20.10.2013. 2. The present appeals have been filed for enhancement of the compensation. 3. I have heard Mr. Divay Sarup, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and gone through the paper-book carefully. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the injured Manohar Lal was an agriculturist. He was earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum. He suffered 20% disability as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident but the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 40,000/- as compensation towards disability which is highly inadequate. 5. He further contended that injured Sat Pal was a mechanic. He was earning Rs. 3500/- per month. He suffered 50% disability as a result of the injuries suffered by him in the accident but the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards disability which is highly inadequate. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that 20% disability on the person of appellant Manohar Lal and 50% disability on the person of appellant Satpal were only qua particular limb. It cannot be taken into consideration for whole of the body. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and appropriate. 7. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 8. First we take up the case of appellant Manohar Lal in FAO No. 2227 of 2008. Ex.P103 is the disability certificate of appellant-claimant Manohar Lal, as per which he has suffered 20% permanent disability qua limb and 12% for whole of the body. 7. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 8. First we take up the case of appellant Manohar Lal in FAO No. 2227 of 2008. Ex.P103 is the disability certificate of appellant-claimant Manohar Lal, as per which he has suffered 20% permanent disability qua limb and 12% for whole of the body. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that appellant was working as an agriculturist and annual income may be taken to be Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has not calculated the compensation for permanent disability in accordance with law. He has awarded Rs. 40000/- compensation towards disability in lump sum which is not the proper mode to calculate the compensation on account of the permanent disability. 9. In case Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 101, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the future loss of earning cannot be assessed on the basis of the percentage of the permanent disability but on the basis of the percentage of functional disability i.e. the effect and impact of such permanent disability on the earning capacity of the victim. The percentage of economic loss, i.e. percentage of loss of earning capacity arising from permanent disability will be different from percentage of permanent disability. So, 12% permanent disability suffered by the appellant qua whole body cannot be taken into consideration to ascertain the loss of future earnings. In my opinion the functional disability affecting the earning capacity of the claimant can be taken to be 8%. The age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 24 years. So, the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable. So, the amount of compensation for permanent disability effecting the future earning of the claimant comes to Rs. 57,600/- (40,000 x 8 x 18/100). So, the amount of compensation under this head is enhanced from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 57600/-. The total amount of award in this manner comes to Rs. 1,12,600/-. 10. Now let us take up the case of appellant Sat Pal in FAO No. 3724 of 2008. As per the disability certificate Ex.P102 proved by PW-4 Dr. R.S. Dalal appellant-claimant Sat Pal has suffered 70% disability qua upper limb and 50% qua the whole body. The said disability was permanent in nature. The learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. As per the disability certificate Ex.P102 proved by PW-4 Dr. R.S. Dalal appellant-claimant Sat Pal has suffered 70% disability qua upper limb and 50% qua the whole body. The said disability was permanent in nature. The learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lump sum to appellant-claimant Sat Pal on account of disability suffered by him. As already mentioned that was not the correct way to compute the compensation on account of the permanent disability. 11. Appellant-claimant Sat Pal was working as a mechanic. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that he was earning Rs. 3500/- per month but there is no documentary evidence to prove the income and his income may be taken to be Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Thus, the income of the appellant Sat Pal is taken to be Rs. 40,000/- per annum. He has suffered 50% permanent disability qua the whole body. In view of the ratio of law laid down in case Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (supra), the functional disability of claimant Sat Pal affecting his earning capacity is taken to be 30%. He was 21 years of age. So, the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable. The amount of compensation on account of permanent disability suffered by appellant-claimant Sat Pal affecting his future earning capacity comes to Rs. 2,16,000/- (40,000 x 30 x 18/100). So, the amount of compensation under this head is enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,16,000/-. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,92,270/-. 12. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion both the appeals are partly allowed. The award of compensation to appellant-claimant Manohar is enhanced to Rs. 1,12,600/- from Rs. 95,000/- and to appellant-claimant Sat Pal is enhanced to Rs. 2,92,270/- from Rs. 1,76,270/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate awarded by the learned Tribunal on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the petition till realisation. The mode of disbursement of the awarded amount and the liability shall remain as determined by the learned Tribunal.