2008 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
NARINDER PAL SINGH AND ORS. – Respondent

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 168 - Injury in motor accident - Quantum of compensation - Appeal by claimant for enhancement and by insurance company challenging liability - Compensation of Rs.52,00,000/- with 9% interest awarded by MACT - Claimant, a practicing advocate, suffered 100% permanent functional disability including complete bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, neurological impairment, and diabetes - Future medical expenses, including treatment abroad at Mayo Clinic, USA, awarded - Multiplier method applied for attendant charges following Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 - Principles of just compensation and liberal approach reiterated. (Paras 2, 3, 30, 44, 52, 54, 73, 76, 77)

(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Findings of fact by Tribunal on negligence and liability, based on preponderance of probabilities, are not to be interfered with unless perverse or illegal - Standard of proof in MACT cases is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt - Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2021(1) SCC (Cri) 475, relied on. (Paras 16, 17)

(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Assessment of income - For self-employed persons, strict proof of income not always possible - Pragmatic and realistic approach required - Pre-accident income of Rs.25,000/- per month from Income Tax Returns considered; enhanced to Rs.40,000/- per month based on future prospects and nature of profession - Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain and another, 2024 INSC 777, referred to. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 29)

(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Heads of compensation - Pecuniary damages include medical expenses (past and future), loss of earning capacity, attendant charges, and cost of future medical treatment - Non-pecuniary damages include pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of marriage prospects - Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, applied. (Para 30)

Facts of the case:
The claimant, a practicing advocate aged about 26 years, suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 13.10.2002. He sustained multiple injuries including head and brain injuries, resulting in 100% permanent functional disability, complete bilateral hearing loss, severe tinnitus, vertigo, insomnia, depression, and diabetes. The MACT awarded Rs.52,00,000/- with 9% interest. Both the claimant (for enhancement) and the insurance company (challenging liability) appealed. The High Court, after considering additional evidence submitted pursuant to its order, enhanced the compensation.

Findings of Court:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding on negligence and liability. On compensation, it assessed monthly income at Rs.40,000/-, applied 100% functional disability, and awarded enhanced sums under various heads, including Rs.6,00,00,000/- for future medical treatment abroad (USA) based on expert medical evidence and cost estimates from Mayo Clinic. It also awarded Rs.1,22,40,000/- for attendant charges using the multiplier method, Rs.30,00,000/- for pain and suffering, and other heads. Total enhanced compensation was Rs.9,49,81,844/- with 9% interest.

Issues: The main issues were whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent driver, and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and adequate, particularly regarding the claimant's loss of earning capacity, medical expenses (including for treatment abroad), and other heads.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in awarding compensation for injuries, the court must adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach to assess income, particularly for self-employed persons. It must consider future prospects and the continuing nature of the disability. For severe and permanent disabilities requiring lifelong care, attendant charges must be calculated using the multiplier method as per Kajal v. Jagdish Chand. Future medical expenses must be awarded based on credible expert medical evidence, even if the treatment is available only abroad.

Result : Appeals disposed; FAO-1923-2008 (Insurance Company) dismissed; FAO-3500-2008 (Claimant) allowed; Award dated 01.05.2008 modified; Enhanced compensation of Rs.9,49,81,844/- with 9% interest granted. (Paras 77, 78, 79, 80)

Table of Content
1. common judgment disposing of two appeals arising from the same accident claim award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. claimant seeks enhanced compensation; insurance company challenges negligence and award quantum. (Para 9)
3. negligence finding affirmed based on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. claimant's continuing severe injuries necessitate additional medical evidence and tribunal report. (Para 18 , 19)
5. tribunal report details medical evidence, expenses, disability, and need for usa treatment. (Para 20)
6. court proceeds to reassess compensation considering claimant's prolonged suffering and disability. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. pragmatic income assessment for self-employed; future prospects considered for compensation computation. (Para 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
8. settled legal principles on heads of compensation in personal injury cases summarized. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
9. total medical expenses awarded based on original and additional evidence including future costs. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
10. need for future medical expenses is certain; court must estimate justly, not precisely. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
11. advanced treatment only available abroad; substantial sum awarded for foreign medical treatment. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
12. attendant charges assessed using multiplier method for lifelong necessary care. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)
13. enhanced compensation for pain/suffering and non-pecuniary heads, acknowledging human dimension. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
14. final award calculation, interest bifurcation, and deposit/disbursement directions by insurance company. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80)
15. court stresses humane approach; insurance companies urged to not prolong legitimate claims. (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85)

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. Vide this common judgment, this Court, shall dispose of FAO- 1923-2008 filed by the Insurance Company as well as FAO-3500-2008 filed by the appellant/claimant, as the same have arisen out of the common award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar.

2. The appeal, i.e. FAO-3500-2008, has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the Award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant in Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 13.10.2002.

3. The appeal, i.e. FAO-1923-2008, has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1/claimant was allowed and the appellant-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to respondent No.1/claimant to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2002 at about 1.30 p.m. claimant along with Shri Vijay Bhushan Mehta was coming from the side of Jyoti Chowk to Skylark Chowk, Jalandhar. Scooter No. PB-08-X- 9546 was driven by Shri Vijay Bhushan Mehta, whereas the claimant was sitting on the pillion. When the said scooter reached near Montique Restaurant a Maruti Zen Car bearing No. CH-03-J-0329 driven by respondent no. 1 came from the opposite side with high speed. It was coming on the wrong side and by this it struck into the scooter driven by Vijay Bhushan Mehta and as a result of strong hitting of the right side of the Car with scooter, the claimant and Vijay Bhushan Mehta fell from the scooter. The claimant suffered serious multiple injuries on his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document