Surinder Kumar v. Ranjit Singh And ORS.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.07.07.2017 Surinder Kumar ........Appellant Vs Ranjit Singh and others ........Respondents

Present:

Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ravindra Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3-insurance company.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL) The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident by one Surinder Kumar that took place on 8.10.1998, resulting into serious injuries. He suffered fracture of both bones of left leg and right leg upper pelvis region. He remained hospitalized from 07.08.1999 to 29.09.1999 and continued to take follow up treatment upto 07.03.2000. He suffered 20% disability qua lower limb and 8% disability in respect of right lower limb. The disability certificate was exhibited as Ex.P8. The claimant was driver by profession and stated to be drawing a salary of `3000/- per month. The salary certificate was produced on record as Ex.P-91.

The Tribunal while awarding the compensation, assessed the disability qua whole body at 7%, took the income of the claimant as `3000/- per month, applied a multiplier of 15 to determine the future loss of income as `37,800/- but provided `50,000/- on account of disability suffered by him, keeping in view the fact that there was disability in the right lower limb also.

-2and special diet, thus, in total awarded a compensation of `1,55,000/- with interest @9% from the date of petition upto 2.6.99 and thereafter w.e.f. 24.4.2001 till realization of the compensation amount. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation. While assessing the future loss of income, it adopted multiplier of 15 whereas it should have been 17 for a person aged 30 years. Moreover, it did not provide any sum for loss of amenities and the amounts assessed under the various heads like special diet, transportation, attendant charges and pain and suffering are on lower side, thus, the award is required to be modified.

On the contrary, Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and justified. There is no scope for enhancement, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is scope for enhancement under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, special diet, attendant charges and transportation. Even if I adopt multiplier of 17 suitable to the age of the injured-claimant, who was 30 years of age at the time of accident while assessing the future loss of income, the amount would come to near about Rs.50,000/-, therefore, I would retain the same as has already been provided by the Tribunal for future loss of income. The various heads of claims are tabulated as under:- INJURY CASE Age 30 years Period of Hospitalization 8.10.1998 to 23.11.1998 and further follow up treatment upto 7.3.2000 Occupation Driver

-3INJURY CASE Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sl. No.

Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs.) Loss of income 50,000 50,000 Medical expenses (i) Medicines 25,000 (ii) Hospital Charges (iii) Attendant Charges 25,000 (iv) Special Diet (v) Transport (vi) Future medical expenses Pain & Suffering-per fracture/per surgery 30,000 50,000 Disability 20% Loss of earning capacity 7% income Multiplier 15 Future loss of income 50,000 50,000 6.

Loss of amenities -- 50,000 Reduction in life expectancy -- Loss of prospect of marriage -- Loss due to disfigurement -- Total 1,55,000 2,40,000 The total compensation payable shall be `2,40,000/-. The amount in excess over what has already been provided by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @6% from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of realization. The liability shall remain the same as fixed by the Tribunal. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE July 07, 2017 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No