Deepak Kumar @ Deepa vs Jagjit Singh And Another

Deepak Gupta, J

The injured-claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, vide award dated 07.02.2003.

It is not in dispute that on 30.01.2002 the appellant, then aged about 20 years, sustained mulple grievous injuries in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of car No. PB-08A-7554. He was inially taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and thereaer shied to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana, where he remained admied for a considerable period . The claim peon under Secon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed against the driver-cum- owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal, having held the driver negligent, awarded compensaon of ₹2,50,000/ - along with interest.

The grievance of the appellant is confined to quantum. It is contended that the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% as per the disability cerficate proved by AW-1 Dr. Tek Raj, Medical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. However, considering the nature of injuries i.e., head injury with sequel le-sided hemiplegia with aphasi a and malunited fracture of le humerus, the funconal disability is virtually 100%. It is further submied that the appellant requires a lifelong aendant and has not been adequately compensated under the heads of loss of future earnings, aendant charges, loss of amenies and marriage prospects.

The Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal has already awarded reasonable compensaon and no f urther enhancement is warranted.

This Court has carefully examined the evidence on record and the principles governing assessment of compensaon in i njury cases.

From the tesmony of AW-1 Dr. Tek Raj and AW-4 Dr. Parshant Jain, it is evident that the appellant suffered severe head injury with hemorrhagic contusions in the brain, fracture of le elbow requ iring surgery, and consequent neurological deficit including aphasia. The evidence further establishes that the appellant cannot walk without support, has speech impairment, and requires permanent assistance. The chances of complete recovery were stated to be remote.

Though the medical disability has been assessed at 60%, the nature of injuries and their impact on the earning capacity must be independently evaluated. The disncon between physical disabilit y and funconal disability has been authoritavely explained by the Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Raj Kumar and another v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1) SCC) 343. It has been held that while medical disability may be quanfied in percentage terms, the funconal disability for the purpose of compensaon depends upon the effect of su ch injury on the earning capacity of the injured.

In the present case, the appellant was a young man of 20 years. He has suffered hemiplegia and aphasia. Considering the neurological impairment and dependency on assistance for movement and speech, his capacity to pursue gainful employment stands praccally exnguished. T herefore, the funconal disability is assessed at 100%.

The principles for award of compensaon under v arious heads in injury cases have also been elucidated in R.D. Haangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551, wherein it has been held that pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages must be separately assessed, and that compensaon should be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the degree of deprivaon suffered.

Coming to the computaon of income, though the appellant pleaded that he was earning ₹6,000/- per month as a carpenter, no cogent documentary or independent evidence was produced. The accident occurred in January 2002. In absence of proof, his income is reasonably assessed at ₹2,000/- per month on noonal basis, i.e. ₹24,000/- per annum.

In view of the law laid down in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 AIR SC 5157, addion of 40% towards future prospects is warranted as the appellant was below 40 years of age. Thus, annual income becomes ₹33,600/-. Applying mulplier of 18, appropriate for age 20 years as per Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporao n and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 the loss of future earning capacity works out to ₹6,04,800/-.

As regards medical expenses, though bills amounng to ₹34,080/-were formally proved, oral evidence indicates substanal expenditure on treatment, transportaon and special diet. The Trib unal awarded ₹1,00,000/-under this composite head. Considering the prolonged hospitalizaon, surgeries, follow-up treatment and overall circumstances, the said amount is maintained.

The appellant remained under treatment for several months. Loss of income during treatment for five months is assessed at ₹10,000/-.

Given the 100% funconal disability and requir ement of lifelong assistance, aendant charges are awarded at ₹1,000/ - per month. Applying mulplier of 18, this works out to ₹2,16,000/-.

Further, under non-pecuniary heads, compensao n is warranted for pain and suffering (₹50,000/-), loss of marriage prospects (₹50,000/-), loss of amenies of life (₹1,00,000/-), transportaon (₹25, 000/-), special diet (₹25,000/-) and future medical expenses (₹20,000/-). These amounts are in consonance with the principle that compensaon should not be token but substanal, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand 2020(2) RCR (Civil) 27.

Accordingly, the compensaon is re-assessed as under:

Head

Amount (₹)

· Medical expenses and ancillary charges

1,00,000/-

· Pain and suffering

50,000/-

· Loss of income during treatment

10,000/-

· Loss of future earnings (100% disability)

6,04,800/-

· Attendant charges

2,16,000/-

· Transportaton

25,000/-

· Special diet

25,000/-

· Loss of marriage prospects

50,000/-

· Loss of amenities

1,00,000/-

· Future medical expenses

20,000/-

Total compensation

₹12,00,800/-

Since ₹2,50,000/- has already been awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensaon comes to ₹9,50,800/-, rounded off to ₹9,50,000/-.

The appellant is, therefore, entled to enhanc ed compensaon of ₹9,50,000/- over and above, what has already been awarded, payable jointly and severally by the respondents along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim peon ll realizaon.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.