Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1503 (PNJ)

Baldev Singh @ Deb Singh v. Pardeep Singh

2021-08-05

LISA GILL

body2021
Judgment Mrs. Lisa Gill, J. This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19. 2. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib (for short, the ‘Tribunal’) vide impugned award dated 21.11.2015 on account of the injuries and disability suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that, a petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the ‘Act) was preferred by the appellant seeking compensation on account of the injuries and disability suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 04.07.2014. FIR (Ex.C1) was registered against the respondent-driver in respect to the incident. Learned Tribunal on considering the evidence on record concluded that the appellant sustained injuries in the said motor vehicle accident, which led to amputation of his left leg. It is held that the said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of canter bearing No. PB-12G-4536 by respondent no.1 – Pardeep Singh. 4. Learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- to the claimant, which is detailed as hereunder:- 1. Expenditure incurred on medical treatment 3,00,000/- For loss of earnings including future earnings on account of permanent disability 1,50,000/- For pain and sufferings 30,000/- For conveyance charges 20,000/- For special diet and attendant charges 40,000/- 5. Aggrieved from the quantum of the compensation, present appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that meagre compensation has been awarded to the appellant, who is now unable to earn his livelihood on account of amputation of his leg as he was earlier working as a driver. The method used for computing loss of earnings, it is submitted, is incorrect. It is thus prayed that compensation awarded to the appellant be enhanced. 7. Mr. Dhamija, learned counsel for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company while seeking dismissal of the appeal, submits that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded to the appellant, which requires no enhancement of any sort. Learned counsel for the Insurance company argues that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the appellant was a driver by profession. 8. Dismissal of the appeal is prayed for. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance company argues that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the appellant was a driver by profession. 8. Dismissal of the appeal is prayed for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file. 10. Liability of the Insurance Company in this case is not in dispute. 11. Neither is there a dispute about the appellant having lost his left leg above knee in the motor vehicle accident which took place on 04.07.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of canter No.PB-12G-4536 by respondent No.1 – Pardeep Singh. Injuries suffered by the appellant are matter of record. There is no dispute regarding the medical evidence which has been brought on record in this respect. Therefore, detailed reference thereto is not being made. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant on a pointed query is unable to point out any evidence on record to indicate that the appellant was working as a driver at the time of the accident. Be that as it may, even if the appellant is taken to be a daily wager, there can be no doubt that the compensation awarded to the appellant is indeed meagre. While treating the appellant to be a labourer, his monthly income is assessed as Rs.6,467/- per month i.e., the minimum wage available in the State of Punjab at the time of the accident i.e., 04.07.2014. 13. Compensation to the appellant is thus required to be reworked in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 765. As per the disability certificate, the appellant has suffered disability to the extent of 80%. At this stage, it is relevant to note that it is the functional disability of the appellant which has to be taken into account while assessing compensation. Appellant has been treated to be a daily wager in the absence of any evidence to indicate that he was working as a driver. Be that as it may, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that functional disability of the appellant is less than 80%. Functional disability is thus assessed as 80%. 14. Accordingly, loss of income is assessed as Rs.5,174/- per month (80% of 6,467). 15. Be that as it may, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that functional disability of the appellant is less than 80%. Functional disability is thus assessed as 80%. 14. Accordingly, loss of income is assessed as Rs.5,174/- per month (80% of 6,467). 15. It is not in dispute that the appellant was about 41/42 years old at the time of the accident. Increase in income on account of future prospects at the rate of 25% has to be afforded taking the amount to [(5174 + (5174 x 25%)] = Rs.6,468/- per month i.e., Rs.77,616/- per annum. Multiplier of 14 is to be applied in this case. Loss of earnings is, thus, assessed as Rs.10,86,624/- [77,616 x 14]. In view of the compensation as calculated above, appellant is not entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of loss of earnings including future earnings on account of permanent disability. 16. Compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded on account of expenditure incurred on medical treatment is upheld as the same has been awarded on the basis of actual medical bills on record. 17. Instead of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings, the appellant is held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-. Appellant is also held entitled to loss of amenities, which is assessed as Rs.50,000/-. As the appellant’s left leg has been amputated above knee, he is held entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- for prosthesis. Rs.20,000/- awarded towards conveyance charges and Rs.40,000/- awarded on account of special diet as well as attendant charges are maintained. Appellant is, thus, entitled to compensation detailed as under:- Sr.No. Heads of Claim Amount 1. Loss of earnings Rs.10,86,624 2. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000 3. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000 4. Cost of prosthesis Rs.1,00,000 5. Medical expenses Rs.3,00,000 6. Special diet Rs.40,000 7. Conveyance charges Rs.20,000 Grand Total Rs.16,96,624/- 18. Amount already awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant/claimant under various heads shall stand deducted from the amount of compensation reworked as above. Claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. 19. With the above said modification in the amount of compensation, present appeal is disposed of.