Soran Ram Vs. Pritam Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderg.c. garg, j.1. this order will dispose of f.a.o. no. 1318 and 1319 of 1993 as these appeals arise out of the same accident.2. in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 27.1.1990, between a car and truck, soran ram and vineet kumar, his son, occupants of the car sustained multiple injuries. however, vineet kumar died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. two claim petitions under section 166 of the motor vehicles act were filed. one by father, mother and the two minor sisters claiming compensation for the death of vineet kumar and the other by soran ram, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. learned motor accidents claims tribunal, karnal, disposed of the two claim petitions by a single order dated 31.3.1993. learned tribunal on a consideration of the matter and after appreciating the evidence led by the parties awarded a sum of rs. 96,000/- as compensation for the death of vineet kumar and another sum of rs. 3,19,000/- on account of compensation for the injuries suffered by soran ram and also awarded another sum of rs. 45,000/- as compensation on account of damage to the car. dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimants have filed these two appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.3. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded for the death of vineet kumar is on the lower side. on a consideration of the matter i find that the contention has no merit. learned tribunal came to the conclusion that vineet kumar, who was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was a t.v. and radio mechanic and thus, he might have been earning a sum of rs. 1,500/- p.m. but having regard to the fact that in the claim petition the income of vineet kumar was stated to be only rs. 1,000/- p.m. took the income of the deceased at rs. 1,000/- p.m. and after applying a cut of 50% for his personal expenditure assessed the dependency of the appellants on vineet kumar at rs. 500/- per month. on a consideration of the matter i see no reason to interfere with this finding as compensation awarded on account of the death of vineet kumar is quite just and fair.4. learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that appellant soran ram, is an advocate by profession and due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 78%. learned tribunal, however, on a consideration of the matter assessed the pecuniary loss to soran ram due to disability at rs. 800/- p.m. only. this in my opinion is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. undisputedly, appellant soran ram, at the time of accident was a practicing lawyer in the punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh. in the accident, as noticed above, he suffered disability to the extent of 78% of lower and upper limb and because of these changed circumstances rendering him incapable of staying and continuing practice at chandigarh, he had to shift his office from chandigarh to karnal, which certainly resulted in a pecuniary loss to him. thus having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case i assess the amount on account of loss of earning at rs. 1,300/- p.m. the amount of compensation calculated after taking the loss at rs. 1,300/- p.m. would come to rs. 2,49,600/- (1300 x 12 x 16) against the amount of rs. 1,53,000/- awarded by the tribunal.no other point was argued. for the reasons recorded above f.a.o. 1319 of 1993 is dismissed and f.a.o. 1318 of 1993 is partly allowed and the appellant soran ram shall now be entitled to a compensation of rs. 4,15,000/- on all counts, besides a sum of rs. 45,000/- on account of damage to the car as awarded by the tribunal. the award of the tribunal is modified to the extent indicate above. the appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the application till payment, minus amount, if any, already received.

Judgment:
ORDER

G.C. Garg, J.

1. This order will dispose of F.A.O. No. 1318 and 1319 of 1993 as these appeals arise out of the same accident.

2. In a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 27.1.1990, between a car and truck, Soran Ram and Vineet Kumar, his son, occupants of the car sustained multiple injuries. However, Vineet Kumar died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. Two claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed. One by father, mother and the two minor sisters claiming compensation for the death of Vineet Kumar and the other by Soran Ram, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal, disposed of the two claim petitions by a single order dated 31.3.1993. Learned Tribunal on a consideration of the matter and after appreciating the evidence led by the parties awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000/- as compensation for the death of Vineet Kumar and another sum of Rs. 3,19,000/- on account of compensation for the injuries suffered by Soran Ram and also awarded another sum of Rs. 45,000/- as compensation on account of damage to the car. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimants have filed these two appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded for the death of Vineet Kumar is on the lower side. On a consideration of the matter I find that the contention has no merit. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that Vineet Kumar, who was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was a T.V. and Radio mechanic and thus, he might have been earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. but having regard to the fact that in the claim petition the income of Vineet Kumar was stated to be only Rs. 1,000/- P.M. took the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- P.M. and after applying a cut of 50% for his personal expenditure assessed the dependency of the appellants on Vineet Kumar at Rs. 500/- per month. On a consideration of the matter I see no reason to interfere with this finding as compensation awarded on account of the death of Vineet Kumar is quite just and fair.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that appellant Soran Ram, is an Advocate by profession and due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 78%. Learned Tribunal, however, on a consideration of the matter assessed the pecuniary loss to Soran Ram due to disability at Rs. 800/- p.m. only. This in my opinion is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Undisputedly, appellant Soran Ram, at the time of accident was a practicing lawyer in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. In the accident, as noticed above, he suffered disability to the extent of 78% of lower and upper limb and because of these changed circumstances rendering him incapable of staying and continuing practice at Chandigarh, he had to shift his office from Chandigarh to Karnal, which certainly resulted in a pecuniary loss to him. Thus having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case I assess the amount on account of loss of earning at Rs. 1,300/- p.m. The amount of compensation calculated after taking the loss at Rs. 1,300/- p.m. would come to Rs. 2,49,600/- (1300 x 12 x 16) against the amount of Rs. 1,53,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

No other point was argued. For the reasons recorded above F.A.O. 1319 of 1993 is dismissed and F.A.O. 1318 of 1993 is partly allowed and the appellant Soran Ram shall now be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,15,000/- on all counts, besides a sum of Rs. 45,000/- on account of damage to the car as awarded by the Tribunal. The Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicate above. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the application till payment, minus amount, if any, already received.