Judgment:
FAO No.443 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.443 of 1995 Date of Decision.30.06.2014 2. FAO No.444 of 1995 Amarjit Singh Arora ......Appellant Versus Chhotu Mal and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the insurance company. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. -.- K. KANNAN J.
1. Both the appeals relate to the same accident by the same person. FAO No.443 of 1995 is for a claim for compensation for personal injuries and FAO No.444 of 1995 is for a claim for compensation for damage to his vehicle.
2. The claimant had suffered facial injuries and had fracture of the left and the right forearm. He had been put on plaster and was said to be on medical leave for 65 days. He had also suffered some injuries over his eyes and the nasal bone was also said to have been fractured. The doctor, who treated him gave evidence to the effect that there had been some disability in his arm and he would not be in a position to squeeze clothes or screw a nail. He assessed the disability at 4%.
3. The claimant contended that he had spent about ` 25000/- Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.02 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.443 of 1995 -2- towards medicines and paid ` 5,000/- to plastic surgeon for treatment of his face. He had also incurred about ` 5,000/- as transport expenses for several visits which he had taken. The Tribunal assessed ` 8,000/- as the medical expenses, ` 2,000/- as payment to the doctor and provided for another ` 15,000/- for the disability. I will take the transport expenses as stated by him as ` 5,000/-, ` 8,000/- as medical expenses covered through Ex.A1 to A42 and ` 5,000/- as the fee paid to the doctor. I will also make a provision for pain and suffering at ` 15,000/- and assess a further compensation of ` 10,000/- towards loss of amenities to him for the facial injuries and the permanent disability which he has suffered in the accident. During the period of his hospitalization, he could have incurred further expenses for attendant charges and special diet for which I would make a provision together at ` 5,000/-. In all the total compensation payable shall be ` 48,000/-. The amount in excess over what has already been provided by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal.
4. The award stands modified and the appeal in FAO No.443 of 1995 is allowed to the above extent.
5. As regards the claim in FAO No.444 of 1995 for damage to the vehicle, there was a proof to the effect that the claimant had actually suffered ` 94,000/- as expenses for carrying out repairs for damage to the vehicle. He had claimed against his own insurer for own damage claim to the accident of ` 62,500/- only and he was making a claim for an additional amount of ` 32,000/- and still further amount of Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.02 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.443 of 1995 -3- ` 18,000/- on account of other expenses for transportation charges in the absence of his car. So far as the own damage claim is concerned, the amount which a claimant could obtain against the insurer will be always subject to the contractual terms that would include a provision for depreciation. As far as claim against a tort feasor is concerned, he could have no such benefit of scaling down the actual expenses incurred by working out any depreciation. If the claimant was forced to make for change to some other parts which had been damaged, he was not fanciful for replacement of old parts for new parts. He was compelled to make a replacement on account of damage caused to his vehicle by the tort feasor. No part of the claim could, therefore, suffer any abatement by applying depreciation. If the claimant was able to take from his own insurer an amount of ` 62,000/-, it should have been even possible that the insurer to join along with the claimant and secure the entire amount of compensation of ` 94,000/-. Since the claimant was not joined the insurer with him in the independent petition, I will make possible the shortfall in the amount of the actual expenses incurred to the extent of ` 32,000/-. There is no scope for providing ` 18,000/- for transportation charges which he would claim as having been suffered by him. That could only be done through an independent suit for the claim to damages for the vehicle has to be only with reference to the actual damages and no other loss is admissible in a claim under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the dismissal of the petition by the Tribunal was erroneous and I set aside the same and I hold that the claimant is entitled to the amount of ` 94,000/- against the insurance company. Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.02 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.443 of 1995 -4- 6. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 30, 2014 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.02 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh