High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/4806/2017allowed

Shilpa Jain v. Inderjeet Jain And Others

2026-01-15Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma19 pages

!!!!!!""#$$%&'( )(!

!!!!!!#("*&+#&'( #(#,-#+ *&.

! 0

%'# *1 +#23(3*&.

0! ! "$*%+#+ *&.

! ! Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced?

YES .

4 !

#### !

$ '$(

* $(( + $,-- .

/$,-- 01 &2 3

) % & * .

/ % & 01 ) ) !

5 "-'''46

)

. 1

)

'- $' '$:

)

; ) )

&2 % &

; &

< < & 2

)

&2 % &

& % 2

)

Per contra )2

) )

&2 > % &

! "

& 2

) ) ) ?

& & ( 6 ) 2

@6=$-(6'$A

C D E 3) 2 > + *

. 1 ! >5

F !

; ) )

&2 % &

& )

) & &2

&2 G& *)

6 - 0& *)

! )

& 2

%7 89:%, )(!

7%;

89:%, %&+ &*'<#,

9",#:# *9,'

%(#( 55

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury.

This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467). 6.

The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. NonApecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on

account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injuredAclaimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

"#$

% '

()( : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/A per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows: a) Annual income before the accident : Rs. 36,000/A. b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/A. c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17 d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) :

Rs. 91,800/A '

(*(: The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/A per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows : a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/A . b) Loss of future earning per annum

0 (75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/A.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17 d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/A '

(+( : The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an Engineer : Rs. 60,000/A b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/A c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18 d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/A [Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)]. , 0& *)

, ' + - .

/0 =

* $(( $(=6

$(- + $,--

6 .1 H

? ) ) I .

* )

! I .31 ! &

2 ) I .H1 5 & ! )2 )

I .J1

)

&I 6)2 ? 2

6 Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be factAcentric or quantumAcentric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on

percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

0& *)

1 .

$+- "#"#)+2"34

6 " 7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined by us:

% %(5(

%(6(;

The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 15A25 years, the multiplier has to be '18' along with factoring in the extent of disability.

The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be '18' and not '17'.

%78 In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish (supra) in para 8: "8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects: (i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; Loss of income including future income;

(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;

(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life."

[emphasis supplied] The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.

In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 11⁄2 years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under:

", % :

(i) compound fracture shaft left humerus (ii) fracture both bones left forearm (iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm (iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand (v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur (vi) fracture shaft femur (vii) fracture both bones left leg We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration.

We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case. $

"8 In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish's case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court.

+0,+-9'0,

8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled principles, the calculation of compensation by the appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as follows:

Loss of earning power Rs. 9,81,978/A

(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100 Future prospects (50 per cent addition) Rs.4,90,989/A Medical expenses including transport charges, nourishment, etc.

Rs.18,46,864/A Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/A Loss of comfort, loss of amenities and mental agony Rs.1,50,000/A Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/A Total Rs.41,69,831/A The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/A as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. $$

)) < % &

)

.* 1

!) ?

$ %

@6$,6''(

/ & * !

+ *

* !

0 '= '$-

)

6 "In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a coAordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon the principles laid down in -

"##;<+<+ =57, made the following observations:A "Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even while noticing that the income of a skilled worker in 2012 was approximately Rs.8000/A the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.9000/A. As per him once the notional income had been taken a deduction had to be made for personal expenses. This argument is flawed. In Lata Wadhwa and others v.

/ State of Bihar and others reported as 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673 (where the accident had taken place in 1981) the Hon'ble Supreme Court evaluated the contribution of a house wife at Rs.3000/Aper month. The accident in the present case took place after 23 years. In my considered opinion to tag a house wife as a 'skilled worker' alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a home manager. Keeping in view the lapse of 23 years between the accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa and the present accident and my conclusion that a house wife is something more than a mere skilled worker it would not be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the deceased in the present case at a higher figure. On the whole I see no reason for reducing the quantum."

7. I find sufficient reason to follow the judgment in FAO No. 218 of 2014, particularly as I am informed that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in this case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the SLP filed in the other case cited by the appellants has also met the same fate. Consequently, these orders have attained finality, leaving no scope for further dispute regarding their binding nature.

8. It is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted role of a housewife as a homemaker. Her contributions extend beyond measurable economic parameters, encompassing household management, child care, emotional support, and the upkeep of familial stability. These services, though often unrecognized in monetary terms, are invaluable to the functioning and wellA being of a household. In assessing compensation, the court must factor in this indispensable contribution, which would otherwise necessitate considerable expenditure if outsourced. In view of the above, it is just and reasonable to determine the monthly income of the deceased Charanjit Kaur, housewife at

Rs.9,000/A per month, therefore, the award requires interference by the Court."

E 2

> 4

)

5 ,'''46

'$:

<!) 6 ) & )) <

) $:

< )& ) 2I ) !

&! !)I

I 2 I

)& %

< )) &

)

! 2 &2

)) <

2 & 2 $"

E !

& !

)

. 1

0?@ "#, :*&'<!

$( % &

)

; & $A E

) & 2 &2

)

2 &

)

2 2

& ) )

< ! 2

. 1 !

) ) !

)

< )&

$ $$ '$A

) K6A H *

& !

)) E

)

. 1

; %

))

)

; $- 0& ?

/?@ < A

"#"; ',+ 66= ! !

& & ;

)

B15. Keeping in view the aboveAreferred judgments, the injuries suffered, the `pain and suffering' caused, and the lifeAlong nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimantAappellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimantAappellant to be justified and as such, award Rs.15,00,000/A under the head `pain and suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimantAappellant for enhancement of compensation was by a

sum of Rs. 10,00,000/A, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.F $, %

) )

! ) 31'##& $%A<(

. 1 !

&2 < &

<2 )2

2 2 )) 2

B)0,73=C"##54 6#""#"3 )

6 D)$$1,),$+:)<1 36.

So far as attendant charges is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in ?.

4"#"#"<+<+ "54 held that where injured was a female child aged about12 years and date of the accident was 18.10.2007 and it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that

. Relevant paragraphs No. 22 and 25 of the aforesaid judgment are as under:

"22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs.2,500 per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs. 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various facts are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this court has always followed the multiplier system. The

5 multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was recognized by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, 1958A65 ACJ (SC).

The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognized as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of just compensation' within the meaning of the Act. 23.

xxxxx 24.

xxxxx 25.

Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic amount taken for determining attendant charges is very much on the lower side. We must remember that this little girl is severely suffering from incontinence meaning that she does not have control over her bodily functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows older, she will not be able to handle her periods. She requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She requires an attendant who though may not be medically trained but must be capable of handling a child who is bedridden. She would require an attendant who would ensure that she does not suffer from bed sores. The claimant has placed before us a notification of the State of Haryana of the year 2010, wherein the wages for skilled labourer is Rs.4,846 per month. We, therefore, assess the cost of one attendant at Rs.

5,000 and she will require two attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/A per month, which comes to Rs. 1,20,000/A per annum, and using the multiplier of 18 it works out Rs. 21,60,000 for attendant charges for her entire life. This take care of all the pecuniary damages. 37.

In view of the above as per the Disability Certificate, which is 100% and which requires fullAtime attendant, therefore, it would be

appropriate to decide the attendant charges accordingly. 100% disability would require day and night attendants, meaning thereby two attendants would be required. Further 100% disability of the appellantAclaimant would require trained attendant i.e. who should have knowledge of nursing and experience as well. Further the minimum amount which an attendant would demand is Rs.10,000/A. Since two attendants are required for 100% disability, it would be appropriate to take the minimum amount of Rs.10,000/A each of two attendants i.e. amounting to Rs.20,000/A for two attendants. 38.

In the instant case, there is substantial medical evidence establishing that the injured appellantAclaimant has suffered from a 100% disability of the lower limb, as per Ex. PA4. Over the past 20 years since the accident on 31.05.2005, the injured has faced significant challenges in leading a normal life. Furthermore, medical testimony confirms that the injured person is unable to carry out daily activities independently.

39.

Applying the principles laid down in ?> it is evident that the appellantAclaimant requires continuous assistance from two attendants for 24 hours a day. In ?> , the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the multiplier system must be followed to determine attendant charges, taking into account factors such as longevity, inflation, interest rates, and the uncertainties of life. The Court also highlighted that an individual with severe disabilities requires dedicated attendants, even if they are not medically trained, to ensure proper care and prevent further complications such as bedsores.

0 $ E

& 2 &2

. 1

! (!??@!

&2 6 ₹ ) 2 % &

) =''''''46 ) ?

&2 !

& 2

2 ) ?

& !

2 &2 0& *)

E , ?

4"#"3',+ 55 ?

) ) ) ?L&

& &

! E ) &

)

6 3;2

)

"12. The award of the Tribunal as modified and enhanced by the High Court determined a total award of Rs.5,52,095/" as computed under mental agony, pain and su$ering, nourishment, transportation and medical expenses, incurred and future, as also expenses for a personal attendant which has to be sustained, since the

injured had lived for 11 years after the accident, in a vegetative state. That has already become a part of the estate of the injured"victim."

0& ?

2 + $,--

)

) F 52

?< ' +- "#""++ 0 + 776 *) )

) C )

) &

))

&2 :

! )

B11. At the outset, it is pertinent to reiterate the concept of `just' compensation under Section 168 of the Act. It is a settled proposition, now through a catena of decisions including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi that compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further, the determination of quantum is a factAdependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious. It must be emphasized that compensation is a more comprehensive form of pecuniary relief which involves a broadAbased approach unlike damages as noted by this court in F ? @ 4, ' +- "### ++7;, para 17. The discussion in the abovementioned cases highlights that Tribunals under the Act have been granted reasonable flexibility in determining `just' compensation and are not bound by any rigid arithmetic rules or strict evidentiary standards to compute loss unlike in the case of damages. Hence, any interference by the Appellate Courts should ordinarily be allowed only when the compensation is `exorbitant' or `arbitrary'.

12. Furthermore, Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislationthat seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forwardAlooking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future. Keeping the abovementioned principles in the backdrop, we now move on to the facts at hand.F "

. 1 !

) ) !

6!2

< 2

)

* )

) ! )

) ( E

) ; % & !2

) ) ? %

) 2

& ?

! !

) %

% &

)

:'8

) !

)

! &2 % &

)

;

! <1-'1B , E

$ '$(

) !2

&2 0& *)

)

) )

&6 , :

+ ) Income Rs.15,000/A Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.6,000/A (40% of Rs.15,000/A) Annual Income Rs.2,52,000/A (Rs.21,000/A X 12) Loss of future earning on account of 100% disability Rs.2,52,000/A (Rs.2,52,000/A X 100%) Multiplier of 17 Rs.42,84,000/A (Rs.2,52,000/AX 17) Medical Expenses Rs.12,44,000/A Pain and suffering Rs.15,00,000/A Attendant Charges Rs.8,00,000/A Transportation Charges Rs.2,00,000/A Loss of amenities of life Rs.5,00,000/A Future medical expenses Special Diet Rs.3,00,000/A $ !C < 464"#4###GC

!C Amount awarded by Tribunal < 364""4###GC 1

< 3464###GC 464"#4###C364""4### ='

&2 0& *)

E *.

. "#)+275=

<. 0

.$ , $ + "#""3

/ + + #5

) 2

) )

=$ 5 6E 3) 2

)

% &

) ) 2

!) % &

) )

0! ! Ayub

K < !46 < * <

K &