Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 514 (JK)

Suman Sharma v. Kirpal Singh

2019-12-31

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant-Suman Sharma (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) is in appeal against the award dated 13.02.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim No.147/Claim seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The facts in brief are that on 26.10.2015, when the claimant was travelling on a motorcycle with her relative Tejinder Sharma from Dhangri towards Rajouri and at Badhoon, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.JK11A/1252 (Tavera) driven by its driver-respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner from Rajouri towards Dhangri hit the motorcycle and caused the accident. The claimant and driver of the motorcycle suffered critical injuries and were shifted to hospital at Rajouri from where the claimant was referred to GMC, Jammu for treatment. The claimant was operated upon in GMC. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the claimant became permanently disabled. 3. A claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs.44,74,000/- under different heads has been filed by the claimant before the Tribunal. The claim petition has been contested by the appellant by filing objections. However, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have chosen not to appear and were, accordingly, set ex-parte vide order dated 01.09.2016. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether an accident took place on 26.10.2015, at Badhoon within the jurisdiction of P/S Rajouri due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.JK11A/1252 (Tavera), owned by respondent No.2, by its driver (respondent No.1) in which the petitioner Suman Sharma sustained grievous injuries (Permanent Disablement) ? OPP 2. If issue No.l is proved in affirmation, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1 at the time of accident was holding a valid and effective license and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3 4. Relief. ?” 4. The claimant, besides appearing as her own witnesses, has produced her witnesses, whereas the appellant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal. 5. OPR-3 4. Relief. ?” 4. The claimant, besides appearing as her own witnesses, has produced her witnesses, whereas the appellant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal. 5. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at the time of accident as Rs.4500/-, taking loss of earning capacity as 20% and applying the multiplier of 18, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimant in the following manner:- “1. Future loss of income Rs.1,94,400/- 2. Expenses on attendants Rs.5,000/- 3. Medical Bills Rs.1,69,363/- 4. Expenses on special diet Rs.5,000/- 5. Compensation on account of pain and Suffering Rs.5,000/- 6. Compensation for loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.3,83,963/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- whereas it should have been Rs.8,000/- per month. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to make addition of 40% to the assessed income of the claimant on account of future prospects. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, justifying the award of the Tribunal submitts that the Tribunal’s award is just and fair and needs no interference from this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award of the Tribunal only on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month and has also failed to make addition in the assessed income on account of future prospects. Rest of the findings of the Tribunal regarding age of the claimant, loss of earning capacity and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal have not been disputed. 10. The appellant/claimant, as is established before the Tribunal, is a household lady and the disability suffered by the claimant in the accident occurred due to the negligence on part of respondent No.1, would definitely impede her contribution towards the family. True it is that the the contribution of a household lady cannot be assessed in terms of money in view of multifarious services rendered by her. In any event, in my opinion, the role of a mother or house wife should not even be compared to that of a servant. True it is that the the contribution of a household lady cannot be assessed in terms of money in view of multifarious services rendered by her. In any event, in my opinion, the role of a mother or house wife should not even be compared to that of a servant. Therefore, in my opinion, income of the claimant by no stretch of reasoning can be said to be less than Rs.7,000/-. 11. Following the principle with regard to future prospects laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 SCJ 2700 and given the age of the claimant i.e. 45 years, 40% is required to be added to the established income towards future prospects. Although, the principle aforesaid was laid down in a death case, yet there is no reason why this cannot be applied to a injury case. This is so because the income of the injured at the time of accident which is taken into consideration for working out loss of his earning capacity due to permanent disablement would also have the prospects of increasing with the passage of time. 12. Taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.7,000/-, adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the claimant would come to (7000+2800) = Rs. 9800/-. Loss of earning capacity calculated at the rate of 20% would, thus, come to Rs.1,960/-. Thus, the annual loss of earning would come to Rs.23,520/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, in view of the age of the claimant, the total loss of future earning would come to Rs.(23520 x 18) Rs.4,23,360/-. Thus, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled to compensation as under:- 1. Future loss of income Rs.4,23,360.00 2. Expenses on attendants Rs.5,000.00 3. Medical Bills Rs.1,69,363.00 4. Expenses on special diet Rs.5,000.00 5. Compensation on account of pain and Suffering Rs.5,000.00 6. Compensation for loss of amenities Rs.5,000.00 Total Rs.6,12,723.00 Other terms of the award shall remain unaltered. 13. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified. The appeal shall stand disposed of.