Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
Sushil @ Sachin – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
FAO-4794 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-03-2023
Parties Involved: Sushil @ Sachin (Appellant/Claimant, minor at time of accident, aged 17 years, student, unmarried) versus Sandeep Kumar & Ors. (Respondents, including driver, owner, and Insurance Company). (!) (!)
Accident Details: On 30.09.2013 at about 10:30 AM near by-pass cut of Village Lakariya, claimant (pillion rider on motorcycle HR-77-3339 driven by cousin Vikash) was hit by Santro Car (HR-06R-2171) driven rashly and negligently at high speed by Respondent No.1 from Rohtak side; claimant's right leg crushed under car's rear tyre, leading to amputation below knee; car hit road divider; claimant treated at PGIMS Rohtak then Base Hospital Delhi (hospitalized 30.09.2013 to 31.10.2013, ongoing OPD); FIR No.285 dated 10.10.2013 u/s 279, 337 IPC at PS Beri, Rohtak registered by claimant. [2]
Respondents' Defense: Respondents No.1 & 2 denied accident, involvement of car, and negligence; claimed false FIR and fabricated story; admitted valid driving license for Respondent No.1 and insurance with Respondent No.3. Insurance Company (Respondent No.3) also denied accident and car involvement; pleaded no valid/effective DL for Respondent No.1, policy breach by owner (Respondent No.2), and excessive claim amount. [3] (!)
Tribunal Issues Framed: (1) Rash/negligent driving of car causing injuries? (2) Entitlement to compensation and quantum/from whom? (3) Maintainability? (4) No valid DL for Respondent No.1? (5) Policy breach by Respondent No.2? (6) Relief. [4]
Tribunal Findings: Issues 1-5 decided in claimant's favor; awarded Rs.1,90,000/- compensation as inadequate; appeal filed for enhancement. [5]
Claimant's Arguments for Enhancement: Permanent disability (medically assessed 65%, argued as effectively 100%) due to right leg amputation below knee affecting lifetime earning; age 17; medical expenses Rs.57,650/-; dependent on others; need repeated prosthetic limbs (cost Rs.4,00,000/- each, life 5-6 years, ~6 needed till age 60); higher amounts for pain/suffering, transport, attendant, diet, loss of amenities, marriage prospects, income loss, disability/disfigurement. [7] (!) (!)
Insurance Company's Arguments: Reiterated no valid DL and policy breach (dismissed by Tribunal and High Court as already considered/rejected; no appeal/cross-objections by insurer). [8][9]
Court's Evaluation of Evidence: Accepted Tribunal's findings on accident, negligence, liability; dismissed insurer's DL/policy defenses as repelled by Tribunal with sound reasons. [6][9]
Principles Applied for Compensation: Emphasized restoring claimant to pre-accident position; permanent disability entitles to future prospects (40% addition even for non-earning students using minimum wages), pecuniary/non-pecuniary damages; assessed disability impact on earnings/amenities. [10][11]
Enhanced Compensation Computation: | Head | Amount | |------|--------| | Annual Income (min. wages Rs.5,860/month x12) | Rs.70,320/- | | +40% Future Prospects | Rs.28,128/- (Total: Rs.98,448/-) | | Loss of Future Earnings (65% x multiplier 18) | Rs.11,51,841/- | | Prosthetic Limbs (Rs.4L x6) | Rs.24,00,000/- | | Maintenance/Repair (lump sum) | Rs.5,00,000/- | | Medical Expenses | Rs.57,650/- | | Attendant Charges | Rs.11,802/- | | Conveyance | Rs.10,000/- | | Special Diet | Rs.30,000/- | | Pain & Suffering | Rs.2,00,000/- | | Loss of Amenities | Rs.2,00,000/- | | Loss of Marriage Prospects | Rs.5,00,000/- | | Loss due to Disability/Disfigurement | Rs.2,00,000/- | | Total | Rs.56,61,293/- |
Tribunal award Rs.1,90,000/- adjusted; enhanced by Rs.54,71,293/- plus Tribunal's interest from petition filing; payable within 2 months of claim with order copy, else +3% penal interest. (!) [p_18 to p_71][12]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident leading to injury details. (Para 2) |
| 2. defendants deny accident and liability. (Para 3) |
| 3. issues framed for adjudication. (Para 4) |
| 4. tribunal's award and analysis. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. arguments for increased compensation. (Para 7) |
| 6. insurance company's defense. (Para 8) |
| 7. agreement with tribunal's reasoning. (Para 9) |
| 8. citing precedent on future prospects. (Para 10) |
| 9. ratios applicable to enhanced compensation. (Para 11) |
| 10. final order on compensation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. (Oral)
Aggrieved by inadequate compensation, the claimant has assailed herein an Award dated 23.01.2017 rendered by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for brevity, "Tribunal"), seeking enhancement thereof.
2. Succinct facts, as noted by learned Tribunal, are as below:
3. Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement denying factum of accident as well as involvement of Car in question. It was averred that no such accident took place due to negligence on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the Car in question. A false FIR was lodged against respondent No.1. Petition was filed on the basis of false and concocted story. It was also pleaded that respondent No.1 was having a valid and effective driving licence and Car in question was insured with respondent No.3 at the relevant time.
3.1 Respondent No.3-Insurance Company in its written statement also denied the factum of accident and involvement of Car in question in the alleged accident. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the Car in question at the time of accident and that respondent No.2 had violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Further it was pleaded that amount claimed by appellant-claimant was highly excessive. Prayer for dismissal of claim petition was made.
4. Based on rival pleadings, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
5. On appraisal of record/ evidence, learned Tribunal decided
The principle of 'just compensation' in motor vehicle accident cases requires that the assessment of damages considers both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, reflecting the actual impact of injurie....
(1) In cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects.(2) Permanent disability suffered in motor accident....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct assessment of disability and future prospects, and the award of compensation for various heads of damages and expenses under the Motor ....
Compensation for permanent disability due to limb amputation must be 'just,' encompassing accurate notional income, future prospects, and full provision for recurring requirements including periodic ....
The court established that future prospects must be considered in compensation calculations, clarifying that a disability rating directly affects compensation awarded.
Compensation for permanent disability must account for future prospects, necessity of lifelong care, and be based on minimum wage standards.
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
