The court held that compensation for injuries must consider future earning capacity and permanent disability, and vehicle owners are not liable for drivers with seemingly valid licenses unless informed otherwise.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J.

This order of mine shall dispose of the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation while impugning the award dated 03.10.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in brevity, 'the Tribunal'), whereby, compensation of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded to the appellant/ claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Further, this order shall also dispose of cross-objections filed at the instance of Owner-respondent No. 1 on the aspect of liability being fixed upon her.

Brief Facts

2. The appellant/ claimant being injured filed claim petition before learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 3.

3. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 and awarded compensation in the following manner :-

4. Being aggrieved against the award dated 03.10.2007, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation. Cross-objections have been filed at the instance of owner-respondent No. 1, only to the limited extent of liability being fixed upon her. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver upheld by the Tribunal are not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, they are not being repeated here.

Arguments

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant submitted that no compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of loss of earning/future earning capacity taking into consideration the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, despite of two disability certificates being placed on record and appellant being bed-ridden for 4 months. He contended that though the accident took place in 2002, merely because it was mentioned in disability certificates (which were issued in 2004/2005) that there are chances of improvement, no compensation was granted. He stressed that Ld. Tribunal should have considered that disability, even if minor, existed even after 3 years and at least for that period of time, compensation under appropriate heads should have been awarded. He further submitted that in view of disability certificates, appellant was found to have 8% impairment in limbs and some functional disability on that account should have been assessed. He concluded his argument by submitting that not only compensation granted for transportation, attendant charges, and the nutritious diet are on lower side and liable to be enhanced in view of the long hospitalization from 07.11.2002 to 19.11.2002, but compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads is also on very lower side.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Cross-objector made submission only to the limited extent of liability being fixed upon her and contended that the Learned Tribunal, while granting the recovery rights to the respondent no.2 i.e Insurance Company, failed to appreciate that the owner i.e. respondent no.1 has appeared before the Ld. Tribunal as her own witness as RW-2 and deposed that the license possessed by the Driver - Kuldeep Singh i.e. respondent no.3 is a genuine document. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National Insurance Company Ltd v. Swaran Singh and Others" reported as 2004(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 114, he submitted that once the owner satisfied himself, then the liability could not be fastened upon the owner even if the license was found to be fake later on, as the owner was not expected to