Gurdas vs State of H.P. and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation. The injured-claimant had brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') seeking compensation for the injuries he suffered in a road side accident that took place on 29.10.2005 in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is claimed that the claimant was running a business in shoes at Haryal, Tehsil Pathankot in the name and style of M/s. Sarangal Boot House and he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He has suffered injuries in the accident on account of which he has suffered permanent disability.

The claim petition is resisted by the respondents. They have denied the aforesaid averments of the claimant and have denied the occupation of the claimant. They have also denied the claimant to be entitled to Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation.

Learned Tribunal noticed the disability vide document Ex. A-132 to be of both the legs, which was 100%. He also noticed the statement of Dr. H.K. Hans, Medical Officer, AW-2, who had proved this disability certificate and has stated that the disability is 100% and is permanent. Learned Tribunal took into account the expenses in a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- evidenced by bills Ex. A-4 to Ex. A-130 and thus, he held the claimant to be entitled to Rs. 1,25,000/- on that account. For the permanent disability of 100%, learned Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and in all assessed a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant, who had suffered 100% permanent disability, had remained hospitalized for 1-1/2 months. According to him, learned Tribunal has allowed him compensation for medical expenses and the disability and has not assessed any amount in the name of pain and suffering, loss of future enjoyment of life, expenses on special diet, transportation and attendant. He has further submitted that even on the disability aspect, the amount awarded is too less. According to him, it is 100% disability and even if on the age-old principle of Rs. 2000/- for 1% disability, the compensation for disability would be Rs. 2,00,000/-.

Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted, on the other hand, that there was no evidence on the record to prove the income of the claimant. According to them, in the absence of proof of income of the claimant, sufficient amount has been awarded by learned Tribunal.

Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for permanent disability. The disability is 100% in this case and, therefore, it is a case of total loss of earning capacity. Even if there was no believable evidence for income of the claimant, he could at least be taken as unskilled labourer and his income could be taken as Rs. 4000/- per month. The case being one of total loss, the amount of Rs. 4000/- per month has been lost by the claimant, which comes to Rs. 48,000/- per annum. The claimant is aged 59 years. As per the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the suitable multiplier in such a case would be 9. Multiplying the annual dependency with 9, a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- is found to have been lost by the claimant in the loss of his earning capacity due to permanent disability. Learned Tribunal was, therefore, quite frugal in assessing compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the permanent disability.

Finding no reason to differ from learned Tribunal on the ground of awarding Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation for the expenses on his treatment, I have yet to assess compensation for pain and suffering and expenses on attendant and transportation etc. The case being one of total loss, the claimant must have been reduced to the vegetative state. Such a person having 100 % disability, would have suffered lot of pain and suffering and also would have lost on future enjoyment of life. Therefore, I asses a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering, expenses on attendant, transportation and loss of future enjoyment of life. In these circumstances, I find a sum of Rs. 7,07,000/- as compensation payable to the claimant for the loss he suffered on account of this accident. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,25,000/- to Rs. 7,07,000/- which shall be payable to the claimant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization thereof.