Compensation in personal injury cases must reflect actual expenses, future needs, and emotional suffering, ensuring justice for claimants with permanent disabilities.

JUDGMENT

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

CM-491-CII-2022

This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 179 days in filing of the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 179 days in filing the above appeal is condoned.

FAO No. 284-2022

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 05.02.2021 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the claimant/appellant, whereby the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.15,78,000/- along with interest @ 7 % per annum, on account of injuries suffered by the appellant in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 13.08.2017.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the salary of the injured has wrongly been assessed by the learned Tribunal. He further submits that nothing has been granted for maintenance of the prosthetic limb. Moreover, amount granted for pain and suffering, attendant charges, transportation charges, special diet, loss of amenities etc. is on the lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

6. A perusal of the record shows that the claimant/appellant suffered 75% permanent disability with respect to amputation of his leg below the knee and other allied problems, as depicted from the Disability Certificate (Exhibit P76) issued by medical Board. It further reveals from the record that at the time of the accident, the appellant was 54 years old and was stated to be working as Turner and was earning Rs.13000/- per month. However, the claimant failed to prove the income as asserted by him. Consequently, the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the claimant/appellant as of unskilled labourer. Therefore, under the prevailing facts of the present case and considering the fact that the appellant is a skilled person, working as Turner, the income of the appellant is assessed as Rs.10000/- per month in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed for skilled labourer in the State of Haryana at the prevalent time.

7. A perusal of the record shows that the left leg below the knee of the appellant was amputated due to which he has to depend upon prosthetic for his entire life. Therefore, he must be granted compensation on account of the expenditure made on purchase and maintenance of prosthetics. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of G Vivek Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2023 ACJ 585. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-

“7. While accepting the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in part, thereby reducing the compensation amount of Rs.56,00,000/-, the only reason discernible from the Order passed by the High Court reads as follows:- "As the claimant sustained disability to the extent of 97% due to amputation of his right leg and other complications, learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of '15'