Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
Suman Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Kirpal Singh and Others - Respondent
Mac App. No.62 of 2019
Decided On : 31-12-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 - Accident - Injuries - Facts in brief are that on when claimant was travelling on motorcycle with her relative Sharma from Shangri towards and at Bedroom offending vehicle bearing Registration driven by its driver respondent in rash and negligent manner from Retour towards Shangri hit motorcycle and caused accident - Claimant and driver of motorcycle suffered critical injuries and were shifted to hospital at Retour from where claimant was referred to GMC Jammu for treatment - Claimant was operated upon - Due to injuries sustained in accident claimant became permanently disabled – Held, Appellant claimant as is established before Tribunal is household lady and disability suffered by claimant in accident occurred due to negligence on part respondent would definitely impede her contribution towards family - True it is that contribution of household lady cannot be assessed in terms of money in view multifarious services rendered by her - In any event in my opinion role of mother or house wife should not even be compared to that of servant - Therefore in my opinion income claimant by no stretch of reasoning can be said to be less - Following principle with regard to future prospects laid down in case of National Insurance Company Panay Seth and others and given age of claimant is required to be added to established income towards future prospects - Although principle aforesaid was laid down in death case yet there is no reason why this cannot be applied to injury case - This is so because income of injured at time of accident which is taken into consideration for working out loss of his earning capacity due to permanent disablement would also have prospects of increasing with passage of time - Taking monthly income of claimant adding towards future prospects monthly income of claimant would come - Loss of earning capacity calculated at rate would thus come - Thus annual loss of earning would – Appeal disposed
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant-Suman Sharma (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) is in appeal against the award dated 13.02.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim No.147/Claim seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The facts in brief are that on 26.10.2015, when the claimant was travelling on a motorcycle with her relative Tejinder Sharma from Dhangri towards Rajouri and at Badhoon, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.JK11A/1252 (Tavera) driven by its driver-respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner from Rajouri towards Dhangri hit the motorcycle and caused the accident. The claimant and driver of the motorcycle suffered critical injuries and were shifted to hospital at Rajouri from where the claimant was referred to GMC, Jammu for treatment. The claimant was operated upon in GMC. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the claimant became permanently disabled.
3. A claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs.44,74,000/- under different heads has been filed by the claimant before the Tribunal. The claim petition has been contested by the appellant by filing objections. However, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have chosen not to appear and were, accordingly, set ex-parte vide order dated 01.09.2016. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
2. If issue No.l is proved in affirmation, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1 at the time of accident was holding a valid and effective license and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3
4. Relief. ?”
4. The claimant, besides appearing as her own witnesses, has produced her witnesses, whereas the appellant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal.
5. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at the time of accident as Rs.4500/-, taking loss of earning capacity as 20% and applying the multiplier of 18, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimant in the following manner:-
| “1. | Future loss of income | Rs.1,94,400/- |
| 2. | Expenses on attendants | Rs.5,000/- |
| 3. | Medical Bills | Rs.1,69,363/- |
| 4. | Expenses on special diet | Rs.5,000/- |
| 5. | Compensation on account of pain and Suffering | Rs.5,000/- |
| 6. | Compensation for loss of amenities | Rs.5,000/- |
|
| Total | Rs.3,83,963/- |
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- whereas it should have been Rs.8,000/- per month. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to make addition of 40% to the assessed income of the claimant on account of future prospects.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, justifying the award of the Tribunal submitts that the Tribunal’s award is just and fair and needs no interference from this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award of the Tribunal only on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month and has also failed to make addition in the assessed income on account of future prospects. Rest of the findings of the Tribunal regarding age of the claimant,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
