IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 28, 2025 Karnailo Devi ......Appellant Vs.

Sham Lal and others ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Balraj Singh and Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocates, for the appellant.

Mr. Karan Gaba, Advocate, for Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate respondent-Insurance Co.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.06.2009 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 read with Section 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant/claimant, whereby the claimant-appellant was awarded Rs.1,05,817/- on account of the injuries suffered by her in the motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 17-08-2008.

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 are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, as the claimant/appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 19%, which was duly proved by way of exhibiting the disability certificate Ex P4. The Tribunal has erred in law in not applying the multiplier method while awarding compensation, as the claimant was 48 years of age. Moreover, a meager amount of compensation was awarded for transportation, pain and sufferings, special diet and attendant charges. Further, no amount of compensation was granted for future prospects, loss of amenities of life and for future treatment. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced as per settled 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. He, thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.

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

6. A perusal of the record shows that the claimant/injured suffered permanent disability to the extent of 19%, which was due to mal-united fracture lower and tibia right side mil restriction of movement at ankle joint with swelling and milt restriction of movement at left ankle joint. The disability certificate was duly proved by way of exhibiting the disability certificate Ex P4. The appellant suffered fracture on both bones lower end and right leg with fracture base of prxomal phalynx of big toe with fracture calcanum left foot.

7. Further the Tribunal has erred in not applying the multiplier method while assessing the compensation, as the claimant was 48 years of age. Moreover, no amount of compensation was awarded for future prospects. Further, the amount awarded for pain and suffering, transportation charges, attendant charges, special diet is on lower side.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

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 a