Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2517 (PNJ)

Mohni Devi Thakur v. Manjit Singh

2019-09-10

LISA GILL

body2019
Judgment Mrs. Lisa Gill, J.:-This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement ofcompensation awarded to him by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Chandigarh (for short, the ‘Tribunal’) vide impugned award dated 11.09.2014 onaccount of the injuries and disability suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that, a petitionunder Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the ‘Act) was preferred bythe appellant seeking compensation on account of the injuries and disabilitysuffered by her in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 24.05.2013. It ispleaded that the appellant was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.HP72-5946 which was going from Amb to Nadaun (Himachal Pradesh). The bus wasbeing driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1, who took asharp turn at village Khohar near Kohla, Police Station Nadaun, DistrictHamirpur and drove the bus towards the wrong side of the road. The bus struckagainst a truck (trolla) bearing registration No.HP55-8111 which was comingfrom the side of village Nadaun. As a result thereof, passengers including theclaimant received grievous injuries. FIR No.66 dated 24.05.2013, under Sections279/337 IPC, Police Station Nadaun was lodged against respondent No.1 inrespect to the incident on the statement of Manohar Lal. 3. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the facts, circumstancesand evidence on record concluded that the appellant sustained injuries in a motorvehicle accident which took place on 24.05.2013 due to the rash and negligentdriving of the offending vehicle bearing No.HP72-5946 by respondent No.1-Manjit Singh. Appellant was held to be 54 years old at the time of the accident.Learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,39,000/- as compensation to theappellant on account of the injuries and disability suffered by her, details ofwhich are hereunder:- 1. Permanent physical Disability Rs.1,50,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.50,000/- 3. Special diet, transportation, Rs.39,000/- pain and suffering, attendant charges etc 4. Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation, present appeal has beenpreferred by the injured/appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a meagre amount hasbeen awarded by the learned Tribunal to the injured-appellant on account of theinjuries suffered by her. No amount has been awarded on account of loss ofincome and amenities. It is thus prayed that the amount of compensation awardedto the appellant be enhanced accordingly. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a meagre amount hasbeen awarded by the learned Tribunal to the injured-appellant on account of theinjuries suffered by her. No amount has been awarded on account of loss ofincome and amenities. It is thus prayed that the amount of compensation awardedto the appellant be enhanced accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3--Insurance Company howeversubmits that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the learnedTribunal as per the facts and evidence on record, which calls for no enhancement.Dismissal of the appeal is prayed for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone throughthe file. 8. There is no dispute regarding the injuries suffered by appellant--Mohni Devi Thakur in the motor vehicle accident in question, caused by the rashand negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HP72-5946 by respondent No.1--Manjit Singh. Finding of the learned Tribunal on thisissue has attained finality. Liability of the Insurance Company in this case is alsonot in dispute. 9. The appellant was claimed to be earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- permonth at the time of the accident by doing the work of tailoring and stitching,though there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the same. However,even if taken to be a house-wife, services rendered by a housewife aremultifarious. She renders invaluable services in her various facets/roles in ahome. Therefore, income of a housewife cannot be equated with that of anunskilled labourer. This Court in FAO No.3395 of 2015 has assessed the incomeof a housewife to be Rs.7,000/- per month in respect to an accident which tookplace in the year 2011. In the present case, it is deemed appropriate to assessnotional income of the appellant as Rs.7,500/- per month for calculating just andreasonable compensation under the head of loss of income. 10. It is a matter of record that the appellant was taken to the hospitalafter the accident. She had also undergone surgery in PGI, Chandigarh on24.05.2013 and remained admitted there till 01.06.2013. Her right arm upto theelbow was amputated. She has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85%as per the Disability Certificate (Ex.PA). Compensation to the appellant is thusrequired to be reworked in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 765. Her right arm upto theelbow was amputated. She has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85%as per the Disability Certificate (Ex.PA). Compensation to the appellant is thusrequired to be reworked in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 765. Needless to say, functionaldisability suffered by the appellant cannot be less than 50% in this case.Therefore, loss of income is assessed as Rs.3,750/- per month (7,500x50%). 11. Increase in income on account of future prospects at the rate of 10%has to be afforded taking the amount to [(3750 + (3750 x 10%)] = Rs.4,125/- permonth i.e., Rs.49,500/- per annum. Age of the appellant was admittedly 54 years atthe relevant time, therefore, multiplier of 11 is to be applied. Loss of earnings is,thus, assessed as Rs.5,44,500/- [49,500 x 11]. 12. Instead of a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards painand sufferings, special diet, transportation, attendant charges, the appellant is heldentitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards loss ofamenities, Rs.5,000/- on account of transportation, Rs.20,000/- towards attendantcharges and Rs.10,000/- on account of special diet. Rs.39,000/- awarded by thelearned Tribunal on account of medical and hospital expenses is maintained. 13. Appellant is, thus, entitled to compensation detailed as under:- Sr.No. Heads of Claim Amount 1. Loss of earnings Rs.5,44,500 2. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000 3. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000 4. Transportation Rs.5,000 5. Attendant charges Rs.20,000 6. Special diet Rs.10,000 7. Medical expenses Rs.39,000 Grand Total Rs.7,68,500/-. 14. Amount already awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant/claimantunder various heads shall stand deducted from the amount of compensationreworked as above. Claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% perannum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. 15. With the abovesaid modification in the amount of compensation, present appeal is disposed of.