Judgment:
FAO No.158 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.158 of 2012(O&M) Date of order:
22. 08.2013 Jagjiwan Singh ....Appellant Versus Ranjit Singh and ors...Respondents -- CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Pardeep S.
Mirpur, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.D.K.Singla, Advocate for respondent no.3.
**** Vijender Singh Malik, J.
CM No.809-CII of 2012 This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 208 days in filing the appeal.
The applicant- appellant has claimed in the application that he has been disabled to the extent of 60% and though he had obtained copy of the award, he misplaced the same and could not file the appeal in time.
The application has been opposed by respondent no.3.
Looking to the facts that the delay is not alarming and it seems to have occurred for a sufficient cause, I accept the prayer and condone the delay in bringing the appeal.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.27 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.158 of 2012 (O&M) 2 FAO No.158 of 2012 This is an appeal of the injured-claimant Jagjiwan Singh for enhancement of compensation.
He had brought a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries he suffered in a road side accident that took place on 09.10.2006.
Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.01.2011 has allowed the claim petition in a sum of `3,00,000/-.The claimant having met with a road side accident on 09.10.2006, suffered injuries on account of which his left lower limb was amputated above the knee joint.
He has suffered 60% disability.
His age is 35 years and he would suffer with after effects of the accident through out his life.
The claim petition is resisted by the respondents.
They have denied the aforesaid averments of the claimant and have denied the claimant to deserve a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for his injuries.
Learned Tribunal noticed that the claimant suffered 60% disability on account of amputation of his left lower limb above knee joint as evidenced by certificate Ex.CW3/A.
He also noticed a bill Ex.CW5/A for a sum of Rs.1,40,800/- for purchase of artificial limb.
Taking a sum of Rs.3000/- to be the surgical fee charged by Dr.
Vikram Jindal, CW-4 and taking into account the loss to the Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.27 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.158 of 2012 (O&M) 3 claimant for the permanent disability, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was found to be adequate compensation to the claimant on all accounts.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- only.
According to him, in similar circumstances where left leg was amputated above knee joint in Govind Yadav v.
New India Assurance Co.Ltd.2012 ACJ 28.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has taken the minimum wages of the claimant and allowed compensation for loss of earning capacity by applying the multiplier system and has enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court in a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- to Rs.9,53,600/-.
He has further submitted that the facts of the case before the court are exactly similar and the award should be made on these lines.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that learned Tribunal has assessed just and proper compensation, which cannot be enhanced under any head.
It is a case with 60% disability.
The left leg of the claimant was amputated above the knee joint and the disability was assessed at 60% vide Ex.CW3/A.
Out of the amount of compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,40,800/- is the price of artificial limb which was purchased by the claimant.
Apart from that, only a sum of Rs.1,59,200/- has been awarded.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.27 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.158 of 2012 (O&M) 4 With 60% of the disability, the compensation should have been assessed by adopting the multiplier system.
The accident took place on 09.10.2006 and at that time the minimum wages could be Rs.3000/- per month.
The loss of earning capacity by the disability would come to Rs.1800/- per month and Rs.21,600/- per annum.
The claimant has been 35 years of age and multiplier in this case as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt.
Sarla Verma and others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 AIR (SC) 3104 , would be 16.
Multiplying the annual loss with 16, I find a sum of Rs.3,45,600/- as the loss of future earnings.
Apart from the aforesaid, the claimant would be entitled to some compensation on account of future treatment as well as replacement of the artificial limb.
In that regard, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would be sufficient as compensation.
With such disability, a man not only loses his earning capacity but also loses much charm of his life.
For loss of enjoyment of life, compensation has to be assessed separately.
In Govind Yadav's case supra, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded for loss of amenities and I do not find any reason to deviate from the said amount.
So, I allow a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.27 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.158 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Compensation for pain and suffering, expenses on treatment and expenses on special diet, transportation and attendant can also be not less than Rs.1,50,000/-.
Therefore, I allow this amount on account of pain and suffering and expenses on special diet, transportation and attendant.
In these circumstances, I assess a sum of Rs.9,86,400/- as compensation in favour of the claimant.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.9,86,400/- which shall be payable to the claimant with interest @ 7.5% per annum as allowed by the Tribunal.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 22 08.2013 dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.27 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh