Bhup Singh son of Nathu Ram vs Sarwan Singh

K. Kannan J. (Oral) - All the three appeals arise out of the same accident. FAO No.1768 of 1992 is for injury to the claimant where the claimant was reported to have suffered three simple injuries and an injury in the spinal region. The doctor, who was examined gave evidence to the effect that the spinal injury was serious and it had to be monitored. There is no proof regarding hospitalization but the claimant stated that he was taking treatment at the hospital for five months and afterwards he could not work for nearly 5-6 months. He would claim that he used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month but he lost his income during all the period when in the same accident his cart was damaged. At the time when the petition was filed, the camel was said to have been hurt and the claimant would estimate the value of the cart which was damaged to be repaired at Rs. 5,000/- and would claim Rs. 5,000/- for injury to the camel. At the time of evidence, he stated that the camel had died and he also gave evidence to the fact that the camel''s worth was Rs. 10,000/- and the cart was purchased by him for Rs. 7,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,000/- for pain and suffering holding that there was no proof of any serious injury requiring hospitalization and provided for Rs. 7,000/- towards damage to the cart and the camel. Though I find that the Tribunal has addressed the heads of claim for which arguments were produced, I am of the view that a spinal injury was borne out through the doctor''s evidence and though no disability was assessed, I would expect that a labourer who works with a camel cart for living would have been incapacitated by a spinal injury and it must have resulted in loss of income in the manner that he spoke. I will assess the loss of income at Rs. 10,000/-, for pain and suffering at Rs. 5,000/- and will assess the loss of cart and the camel at Rs. 5,000/- each. The total compensation assessed shall be Rs. 25,000/-. The amount in excess of what has already been provided by the Tribunal shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment.

The award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the appeal in FAO No.1768 of 1992 is allowed to the above extent.

As regards the claim in FAO No.1769 of 1992, the contention was that the claimant had three injuries and the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 4,000/- as compensation. With no specific evidence regarding the nature of injuries any more than that they were simple injuries where the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,000/-, I will find no justification for modifying the same.

The award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal in FAO No.1769 of 1992 is dismissed.

As regards the claim in FAO No.1770 of 1992, it was a case of death of a 12 years old boy who was said to be a shepherd. The claim was made by the parents. The Tribunal has assessed a compensation of Rs. 35,000/-.

In the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65, the Court has observed that in all cases relating to children upto the age of 15, a multiplier of 15 must be taken for the sake of uniformity. I would take the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per year, take a 50% deduction and take the yearly contribution to Rs. 7500/-, apply a multiplier of 15 and take the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,12,500/-. I will add Rs. 7500/- for loss of love and affection of the boy to the parents and make a further addition of Rs. 5000/- towards loss of funeral expenses. The total compensation payable would be Rs. 1,25,000/-. The amount in excess of what has already been provided by the Tribunal shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment.

The award stands modified and the appeal in FAO No.1770 of 1992 is allowed to the above extent. The liability in both the cases in FAO No.1768 and 1770 of 1992 shall be on the insurance company.