B. Lal Singh alias Lal Singh v Vinod Kumar and others

Punjab And Haryana High Court

18 July 2013

LPA No. 395 of 1998

The Judgment was delivered by : Augustine George Masih, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant seeking further enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to him by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 08.07.1998 enhancing the compensation to Rs. 1,37,000/- from Rs. 90,000/-, as was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-claimant was coming on his scooter on 04.04.1991 and reached Tangri Bridge where there was rush of traffic and a blockade. He stopped his scooter in front of Car No. HR-29-0051. Truck No. HRX-3916 driven by Yadh Ram-respondent No. 3 hit the stationery car at high speed. Due to the said impact, the car hit the appellant-claimant. He fell down and suffered multiple injuries. He was rushed to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh where he had to be operated upon thrice but his leg could not be saved and had to be amputated. He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, which, after trial, assessed total compensation of Rs. 90,000/-, which, on appeal, has been enhanced by the learned Single Judge to Rs. 1,37,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-claimant was aged about 36 years when he met with an accident, which resulted in amputation of his right leg above the knee. He remained admitted in hospital from 04.04.1991 to 09.05.1991 and had to undergo three surgeries. It has been proved that the appellant suffered permanent disability of 80% of his right limb, because of which, he lost his job. Referring to the evidence led by the claimant-appellant, counsel submits that the appellant was paid salary of Rs. 1,775/- while working under PW-4 Subhash Mahajan besides other benefits like bonus, provident fund and free conveyance. Besides that he had also been looking after the farm of one Sh. Rakesh Mohindra PW-5, who was paying him 1,000/- per month for the said work. He, on this basis, contends that the monthly income of the appellant would come to Rs. 2,775/- in cash. The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have not computed the compensation payable to the claimant-injured by applying the multiplier to the loss of monthly income of the appellant nor has said multiplier been applied for determination of the loss of future earning capacity rather a lump sum amount has been assessed under the said head, which is not sustainable in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs.

4. The New India Insurance Company Limited, 2011 (10) SCC 683. Learned counsel has asserted that with the amputation of his right leg, an artificial leg is being used by the appellant-claimant which has to be changed after every 3-4 years and only one time compensation amounting to Rs. 7,000/- has been granted to him. He, on this basis, claims enhancement of compensation for further treatment. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subulaxmi vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and another, 2012 (10) SCC 177ย 2012 Indlaw SC 390, which also supports the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal. He, accordingly, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation granted to the appellant be enhanced.

None has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents No. 1 to 4 despite the matter having been adjourned as part heard on 04.07.2013 for today.

We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records of the case.

5. As per the documents placed on record, Ex. P3 and Ex.P4, certificates issued by Sh. Subhash Mahajan PW-4 and Sh. Rakesh Mohindra PW-5, the monthly income of the appellant would come to Rs. 2,775/- in cash excluding the free vegetables and milk, which was being given to him by Sh. Subhash Mahajan as asserted. As the appellant has suffered permanent disability of 80%, hence, the loss of the future earning capacity may be computed at 20% less. His future earnings will thus come to Rs. 2,220/- per month and the annual loss of earnings would come to Rs. 26,640/-. Applying the multiplier of 16, loss in future earnings would come to Rs. 4,26,240/-.

Further, in the light of the fact that the appellant has been forced to now use an artificial leg because of amputation of his right leg above his knee, which is required to be replaced every 3-4 years, amount of Rs. 7,000/- awarded by the learned Single Judge is inadequate and, therefore, the said compensation is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- for future treatment and medical expenses.

6. In view of the above, appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,76,240/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment minus the amount already received by him.

7. Appeal stands allowed accordingly to this extent.

Appeal allowed